<?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>2007 (10) TMI 620 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174118</link>
    <description>The Supreme Court quashed the order taking cognizance against the appellant, emphasizing that criminal proceedings should not be used as a shortcut for civil remedies. The court held that breach of contract alone does not constitute a criminal offense and highlighted the absence of fraudulent or dishonest intention in the case. The court stressed the importance of ensuring that criminal proceedings serve the ends of justice and set aside the judgment, allowing the appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 12 Oct 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 16 Jan 2018 14:33:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=399386" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (10) TMI 620 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174118</link>
      <description>The Supreme Court quashed the order taking cognizance against the appellant, emphasizing that criminal proceedings should not be used as a shortcut for civil remedies. The court held that breach of contract alone does not constitute a criminal offense and highlighted the absence of fraudulent or dishonest intention in the case. The court stressed the importance of ensuring that criminal proceedings serve the ends of justice and set aside the judgment, allowing the appeal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 12 Oct 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174118</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>