<?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 (12) TMI 1028 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280154</link>
    <description>Directors and office-bearers cannot be summoned for criminal breach of trust, cheating, or conspiracy on vague and omnibus allegations; the complaint must plead specific facts showing their personal participation and a definite factual basis for criminal liability. The court also noted that, absent statutory vicarious liability, office alone does not justify trial. On the cheating allegation against the company, a disputed demand, accounting adjustment, or set-off of share sale proceeds did not by itself show deceptive or dishonest inducement at inception. The article therefore highlights the need for particularised allegations and a clear showing of fraudulent intent before criminal process can be sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 14 Dec 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 23 Apr 2019 14:31:32 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=568053" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (12) TMI 1028 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280154</link>
      <description>Directors and office-bearers cannot be summoned for criminal breach of trust, cheating, or conspiracy on vague and omnibus allegations; the complaint must plead specific facts showing their personal participation and a definite factual basis for criminal liability. The court also noted that, absent statutory vicarious liability, office alone does not justify trial. On the cheating allegation against the company, a disputed demand, accounting adjustment, or set-off of share sale proceeds did not by itself show deceptive or dishonest inducement at inception. The article therefore highlights the need for particularised allegations and a clear showing of fraudulent intent before criminal process can be sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 14 Dec 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280154</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>