<?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>1964 (11) TMI 113 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200166</link>
    <description>A company officer cannot be convicted for an offence committed by the company unless the statute&#039;s conditions for vicarious liability are proved by evidence of consent, connivance, or neglect; mere designation as commercial manager is insufficient, and the conviction could not be sustained. The defence that the article sold was toned milk rather than adulterated buffalo milk also failed because it was unsupported by the surrounding circumstances and no prompt step was taken to test the retained sample on that basis. The revision succeeded on individual liability, and the conviction and sentence could not stand against the applicant.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 17 Nov 1964 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 22 Mar 2018 16:55:59 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=514151" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1964 (11) TMI 113 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200166</link>
      <description>A company officer cannot be convicted for an offence committed by the company unless the statute&#039;s conditions for vicarious liability are proved by evidence of consent, connivance, or neglect; mere designation as commercial manager is insufficient, and the conviction could not be sustained. The defence that the article sold was toned milk rather than adulterated buffalo milk also failed because it was unsupported by the surrounding circumstances and no prompt step was taken to test the retained sample on that basis. The revision succeeded on individual liability, and the conviction and sentence could not stand against the applicant.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 17 Nov 1964 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200166</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>