<?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>1979 (10) TMI 214 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157354</link>
    <description>A director or managing director with real dominion and control over bank assets may be treated as standing in a trustee-like position for purposes of criminal breach of trust, and false substitution of entries or concealment of shortages can amount to dishonest misappropriation or conversion. Resignation from the formal office does not by itself defeat liability where evidence shows continued de facto control. The court also accepted that participation in a proved conspiracy may be established by circumstantial evidence, including overt acts and conduct in furtherance of the common design, with such acts admissible against conspirators under Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. On that basis, the convictions were sustained, subject only to a limited modification in fine for one appellant.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 10 Oct 1979 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 02 Aug 2014 16:49:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=174379" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1979 (10) TMI 214 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157354</link>
      <description>A director or managing director with real dominion and control over bank assets may be treated as standing in a trustee-like position for purposes of criminal breach of trust, and false substitution of entries or concealment of shortages can amount to dishonest misappropriation or conversion. Resignation from the formal office does not by itself defeat liability where evidence shows continued de facto control. The court also accepted that participation in a proved conspiracy may be established by circumstantial evidence, including overt acts and conduct in furtherance of the common design, with such acts admissible against conspirators under Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. On that basis, the convictions were sustained, subject only to a limited modification in fine for one appellant.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 10 Oct 1979 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157354</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>