<?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>1984 (9) TMI 300 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192658</link>
    <description>SC held that Section 10 of the Essential Commodities Act does not require that a company be prosecuted alongside its person-in-charge or officers; those individuals may be prosecuted separately or jointly, provided it is first established that the company committed the contravention. The Court ruled such prosecutions are maintainable and do not violate Section 10, and dismissed the appeals.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 12 Sep 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 30 Oct 2025 18:50:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=471519" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1984 (9) TMI 300 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192658</link>
      <description>SC held that Section 10 of the Essential Commodities Act does not require that a company be prosecuted alongside its person-in-charge or officers; those individuals may be prosecuted separately or jointly, provided it is first established that the company committed the contravention. The Court ruled such prosecutions are maintainable and do not violate Section 10, and dismissed the appeals.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 12 Sep 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192658</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>