<?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>2015 (8) TMI 1127 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=263210</link>
    <description>Inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC should be exercised only where no other effective remedy is available. As the petitioners could raise the same objections before the trial court at the stage of consideration of charge, the High Court declined to entertain the quashing petition on merits. Liberty was granted to the petitioners to urge their contentions before the trial court, which was directed to decide them by a speaking and reasoned order.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 18 Aug 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 08 Jan 2016 14:49:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=395082" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (8) TMI 1127 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=263210</link>
      <description>Inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC should be exercised only where no other effective remedy is available. As the petitioners could raise the same objections before the trial court at the stage of consideration of charge, the High Court declined to entertain the quashing petition on merits. Liberty was granted to the petitioners to urge their contentions before the trial court, which was directed to decide them by a speaking and reasoned order.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 18 Aug 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=263210</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>