<?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>2009 (3) TMI 1056 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194006</link>
    <description>Pendency of a probate petition does not automatically justify staying a criminal prosecution alleging forgery of the same will. Civil and criminal proceedings may continue simultaneously, and the decision to suspend one depends on the facts, stage of the matter and the need to avoid delaying criminal process, which ordinarily receives priority. Findings in civil proceedings do not bind criminal courts, and a probate judgment has conclusive effect as a judgment in rem only when final. On the facts, the criminal case had been instituted earlier and involved allegations of cheating, forgery and trespass, so there was no basis to halt the criminal trial.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 03 Mar 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 26 Oct 2023 17:37:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=486862" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (3) TMI 1056 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194006</link>
      <description>Pendency of a probate petition does not automatically justify staying a criminal prosecution alleging forgery of the same will. Civil and criminal proceedings may continue simultaneously, and the decision to suspend one depends on the facts, stage of the matter and the need to avoid delaying criminal process, which ordinarily receives priority. Findings in civil proceedings do not bind criminal courts, and a probate judgment has conclusive effect as a judgment in rem only when final. On the facts, the criminal case had been instituted earlier and involved allegations of cheating, forgery and trespass, so there was no basis to halt the criminal trial.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 03 Mar 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194006</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>