<?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 1227 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=263310</link>
    <description>The court dismissed the petition seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the respondent by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore. Despite the petitioner&#039;s arguments that the lower court&#039;s reasons for granting bail were factually incorrect and legally untenable, the court found no evidence of abuse of the concession granted to the accused. The court emphasized that cancellation of anticipatory bail requires very cogent and overwhelming circumstances, such as interference with the administration of justice or evasion of justice, which were not present in this case. Therefore, the court held that the petitioner failed to establish grounds for cancellation of the anticipatory bail.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 18 Jun 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 06 Jan 2016 14:46:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=395301" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (8) TMI 1227 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=263310</link>
      <description>The court dismissed the petition seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the respondent by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore. Despite the petitioner&#039;s arguments that the lower court&#039;s reasons for granting bail were factually incorrect and legally untenable, the court found no evidence of abuse of the concession granted to the accused. The court emphasized that cancellation of anticipatory bail requires very cogent and overwhelming circumstances, such as interference with the administration of justice or evasion of justice, which were not present in this case. Therefore, the court held that the petitioner failed to establish grounds for cancellation of the anticipatory bail.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 18 Jun 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=263310</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>