<?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>1997 (10) TMI 389 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165455</link>
    <description>Vicarious liability under Section 10 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 arises only where the company itself has committed the contravention; absent such a finding, persons in charge cannot be fastened with liability merely because they managed the business. A conviction for conspiracy or for breach of a control order also requires proof of knowledge, participation, or agreement in the unlawful sale, not suspicion from de facto control alone. On the stated facts, the evidence showed only managerial involvement and did not establish that the respondents knew of, negotiated, or participated in the sale of pig iron at an excess price, so liability was not made out.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 28 Oct 1970 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 16 Jan 2018 14:10:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=359871" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (10) TMI 389 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165455</link>
      <description>Vicarious liability under Section 10 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 arises only where the company itself has committed the contravention; absent such a finding, persons in charge cannot be fastened with liability merely because they managed the business. A conviction for conspiracy or for breach of a control order also requires proof of knowledge, participation, or agreement in the unlawful sale, not suspicion from de facto control alone. On the stated facts, the evidence showed only managerial involvement and did not establish that the respondents knew of, negotiated, or participated in the sale of pig iron at an excess price, so liability was not made out.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 28 Oct 1970 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165455</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>