<?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>Corporate officer liability requires proof that the company offence was committed with the officer&#039;s consent or connivance, or was attributable to the officer&#039;s neglect. Mere designation as commercial manager, without evidence linking the individual to the manufacture or sale of milk or otherwise establishing a nexus with the offence, does not attract vicarious criminal liability. The conviction and sentence against the commercial manager could not stand. The defence that the product was toned milk rather than adulterated buffalo milk failed because it lacked supporting circumstances and was not pursued through prompt testing of the retained sample.</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>Corporate officer liability requires proof that the company offence was committed with the officer&#039;s consent or connivance, or was attributable to the officer&#039;s neglect. Mere designation as commercial manager, without evidence linking the individual to the manufacture or sale of milk or otherwise establishing a nexus with the offence, does not attract vicarious criminal liability. The conviction and sentence against the commercial manager could not stand. The defence that the product was toned milk rather than adulterated buffalo milk failed because it lacked supporting circumstances and was not pursued through prompt testing of the retained sample.</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>