<?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>2018 (8) TMI 862 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=365390</link>
    <description>A petition under Section 482 CrPC cannot be used to bypass the statutory bar on a second revision after a party has already challenged an order framing charge in revisional jurisdiction. The Delhi HC reiterated that inherent powers are not meant to circumvent Section 397(3) CrPC unless special circumstances justify interference. As no such exceptional grounds were shown, the court declined to entertain the Section 482 petition and the challenge to the charge-framing order failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 30 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 16 Aug 2018 08:01:17 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=530880" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (8) TMI 862 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=365390</link>
      <description>A petition under Section 482 CrPC cannot be used to bypass the statutory bar on a second revision after a party has already challenged an order framing charge in revisional jurisdiction. The Delhi HC reiterated that inherent powers are not meant to circumvent Section 397(3) CrPC unless special circumstances justify interference. As no such exceptional grounds were shown, the court declined to entertain the Section 482 petition and the challenge to the charge-framing order failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 30 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=365390</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>