<?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>2009 (9) TMI 922 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171815</link>
    <description>Execution of a sale deed by a person claiming property as his own, though he is not the owner, does not by itself create a false document. Forgery provisions apply only where the document is made pretending to be another person, or under another&#039;s authority, or is otherwise altered within the statutory definition. On that footing, allegations under forgery-related offences and cheating failed because the complaint did not show impersonation, false authority, or fraudulent inducement causing the complainant to part with property or act to his detriment. Allegations of intentional insult also failed. However, the complaint materials were considered sufficient at the threshold to leave the allegations of wrongful restraint and hurt undisturbed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 04 Sep 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2015 07:35:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=392151" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (9) TMI 922 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171815</link>
      <description>Execution of a sale deed by a person claiming property as his own, though he is not the owner, does not by itself create a false document. Forgery provisions apply only where the document is made pretending to be another person, or under another&#039;s authority, or is otherwise altered within the statutory definition. On that footing, allegations under forgery-related offences and cheating failed because the complaint did not show impersonation, false authority, or fraudulent inducement causing the complainant to part with property or act to his detriment. Allegations of intentional insult also failed. However, the complaint materials were considered sufficient at the threshold to leave the allegations of wrongful restraint and hurt undisturbed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 04 Sep 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171815</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>