<?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>1981 (5) TMI 124 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182601</link>
    <description>A member of the Indian Administrative Service placed on deputation to a cooperative society running the Super Bazaars was not treated as a public servant within clause Twelfth of section 21 of the Indian Penal Code for section 197 CrPC purposes. A cooperative society registered under a statute, even if a body corporate, is not a corporation established by or under an Act merely because it is corporately constituted. Limited governmental control, funding, shareholding, or approval requirements did not make the officer employed in connection with the affairs of the Union. Previous sanction for prosecution was therefore not required, and the cognizance objection failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 08 May 1981 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 14 May 2016 11:34:54 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=428229" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1981 (5) TMI 124 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182601</link>
      <description>A member of the Indian Administrative Service placed on deputation to a cooperative society running the Super Bazaars was not treated as a public servant within clause Twelfth of section 21 of the Indian Penal Code for section 197 CrPC purposes. A cooperative society registered under a statute, even if a body corporate, is not a corporation established by or under an Act merely because it is corporately constituted. Limited governmental control, funding, shareholding, or approval requirements did not make the officer employed in connection with the affairs of the Union. Previous sanction for prosecution was therefore not required, and the cognizance objection failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 08 May 1981 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182601</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>