<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1989 (8) TMI 337 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156748</link>
    <description>Section 10 of the Essential Commodities Act does not impose vicarious criminal liability on every partner of a firm merely by reason of partnership. Liability arises only for persons who, at the time of contravention, were in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the firm&#039;s business, and a penal provision must be strictly construed. On the evidence, only one partner was shown to have signed the relevant statement and conducted the business; no material showed that the remaining partners managed the firm&#039;s affairs during the relevant period. Conviction of the partners not shown to be in charge was therefore unsustainable, while the conviction of the partner shown to be conducting the business was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 21 Aug 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 24 Sep 2013 16:52:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=173774" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1989 (8) TMI 337 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156748</link>
      <description>Section 10 of the Essential Commodities Act does not impose vicarious criminal liability on every partner of a firm merely by reason of partnership. Liability arises only for persons who, at the time of contravention, were in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the firm&#039;s business, and a penal provision must be strictly construed. On the evidence, only one partner was shown to have signed the relevant statement and conducted the business; no material showed that the remaining partners managed the firm&#039;s affairs during the relevant period. Conviction of the partners not shown to be in charge was therefore unsustainable, while the conviction of the partner shown to be conducting the business was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 21 Aug 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156748</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>