<?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>2010 (5) TMI 817 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175497</link>
    <description>Costs imposed as a condition for allowing an application to examine the sanctioning authority under Section 311 CrPC were held unsustainable where the trial delay was not attributable only to the applicant. The record showed that both sides contributed to the delay and that the Presiding Officer was also absent on some dates, so directing the petitioner department to pay costs to the accused would unjustly benefit the opposite party. The witness needed to prove sanction for prosecution was already permitted to be examined, and any cost direction, if made at all, should not have been payable to the accused persons.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 24 May 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 24 Nov 2015 12:51:44 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=406351" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (5) TMI 817 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175497</link>
      <description>Costs imposed as a condition for allowing an application to examine the sanctioning authority under Section 311 CrPC were held unsustainable where the trial delay was not attributable only to the applicant. The record showed that both sides contributed to the delay and that the Presiding Officer was also absent on some dates, so directing the petitioner department to pay costs to the accused would unjustly benefit the opposite party. The witness needed to prove sanction for prosecution was already permitted to be examined, and any cost direction, if made at all, should not have been payable to the accused persons.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 24 May 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175497</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>