<?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>2008 (2) TMI 854 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166936</link>
    <description>A third party may obtain certified copies of criminal court records from the trial court where the records are public documents and no overriding confidentiality or State interest is shown. Section 363(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was treated as creating a substantive entitlement to copies for persons not affected by the judgment or order, and that entitlement was not lost merely because the High Court had not framed rules. Order XII Rule 3 of the Madras High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1965 was held inapplicable because the documents had not reached the High Court. The refusal to furnish copies was therefore unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 27 Feb 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 11 Dec 2014 13:17:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=368750" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (2) TMI 854 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166936</link>
      <description>A third party may obtain certified copies of criminal court records from the trial court where the records are public documents and no overriding confidentiality or State interest is shown. Section 363(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was treated as creating a substantive entitlement to copies for persons not affected by the judgment or order, and that entitlement was not lost merely because the High Court had not framed rules. Order XII Rule 3 of the Madras High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1965 was held inapplicable because the documents had not reached the High Court. The refusal to furnish copies was therefore unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 27 Feb 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166936</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>