<?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>2012 (1) TMI 270 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182654</link>
    <description>At the stage of issuing process, a Magistrate must only assess whether the materials disclose sufficient ground for proceeding; the court cannot weigh defence versions, test proof beyond prima facie satisfaction, or undertake a detailed factual evaluation. On that standard, the order taking cognizance and issuing process was upheld because it was supported by materials on record and could not be faulted merely for drawing a detailed prima facie view. A request for further investigation was also declined, as it had already been rejected earlier and no basis remained to reopen the same controversy at the review stage. The review petition therefore failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 06 Jan 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 16 May 2016 18:17:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=428379" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (1) TMI 270 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182654</link>
      <description>At the stage of issuing process, a Magistrate must only assess whether the materials disclose sufficient ground for proceeding; the court cannot weigh defence versions, test proof beyond prima facie satisfaction, or undertake a detailed factual evaluation. On that standard, the order taking cognizance and issuing process was upheld because it was supported by materials on record and could not be faulted merely for drawing a detailed prima facie view. A request for further investigation was also declined, as it had already been rejected earlier and no basis remained to reopen the same controversy at the review stage. The review petition therefore failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 06 Jan 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182654</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>