<?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>2016 (10) TMI 1074 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193683</link>
    <description>The Supreme Court upheld the convictions and sentences imposed on the appellant for theft offenses. It exercised discretion under Section 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, directing that the sentences for the separate cases run concurrently with the operative sentence. The Court specified that fines and default sentences would remain separate. The aggregate sentence duration was adjusted to ensure fairness, with the Court modifying the orders accordingly.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 03 Oct 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 12 Aug 2017 08:27:03 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=485345" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (10) TMI 1074 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193683</link>
      <description>The Supreme Court upheld the convictions and sentences imposed on the appellant for theft offenses. It exercised discretion under Section 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, directing that the sentences for the separate cases run concurrently with the operative sentence. The Court specified that fines and default sentences would remain separate. The aggregate sentence duration was adjusted to ensure fairness, with the Court modifying the orders accordingly.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 03 Oct 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193683</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>