<?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>2012 (8) TMI 683 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=216004</link>
    <description>Official consultations and inter-departmental discussions between ministers did not, on the record, establish a prima facie criminal conspiracy in spectrum pricing and licence issuance. The materials also failed to show abuse of office, use of corrupt or illegal means, or procurement of any pecuniary advantage for the Finance Minister or others; the alleged equity dilution by licensees was not directly or deliberately linked to him. On that evidentiary basis, the ingredients of Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act were not satisfied, and no further investigation or addition of the Finance Minister as an accused was warranted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 24 Aug 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 13 Dec 2017 12:19:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=189388" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (8) TMI 683 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=216004</link>
      <description>Official consultations and inter-departmental discussions between ministers did not, on the record, establish a prima facie criminal conspiracy in spectrum pricing and licence issuance. The materials also failed to show abuse of office, use of corrupt or illegal means, or procurement of any pecuniary advantage for the Finance Minister or others; the alleged equity dilution by licensees was not directly or deliberately linked to him. On that evidentiary basis, the ingredients of Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act were not satisfied, and no further investigation or addition of the Finance Minister as an accused was warranted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 24 Aug 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=216004</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>