<?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>2001 (10) TMI 1141 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171709</link>
    <description>Section 89 of the Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000 transfers pending proceedings that relate exclusively to Jharkhand, with &quot;exclusively&quot; read in its statutory context and in light of the corresponding-court scheme. The decisive test is where the proceeding would have been instituted after the appointed day. For offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, jurisdiction follows the place where the principal offence was committed, because trial lies before the Special Judge for that area. On that basis, the alleged misappropriation was completed where public money was withdrawn from treasuries in the territory that became Jharkhand, and related conspiracy or preparatory acts elsewhere did not alter the trial forum.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 05 Oct 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 29 Jul 2015 17:05:24 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=391688" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (10) TMI 1141 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171709</link>
      <description>Section 89 of the Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000 transfers pending proceedings that relate exclusively to Jharkhand, with &quot;exclusively&quot; read in its statutory context and in light of the corresponding-court scheme. The decisive test is where the proceeding would have been instituted after the appointed day. For offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, jurisdiction follows the place where the principal offence was committed, because trial lies before the Special Judge for that area. On that basis, the alleged misappropriation was completed where public money was withdrawn from treasuries in the territory that became Jharkhand, and related conspiracy or preparatory acts elsewhere did not alter the trial forum.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 05 Oct 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171709</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>