<?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>2000 (7) TMI 990 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280569</link>
    <description>A complaint alleging that all accused jointly forged and produced a certificate in court can sustain process at the quashing stage if it discloses a prima facie offence. The Court held that detailed attribution of each accused&#039;s individual role in the making of the document was not required at that threshold, and the truth of the allegation could not be finally tested then. The order quashing the proceedings was set aside and the summons order was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 18 Jul 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 May 2019 17:22:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=570705" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (7) TMI 990 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280569</link>
      <description>A complaint alleging that all accused jointly forged and produced a certificate in court can sustain process at the quashing stage if it discloses a prima facie offence. The Court held that detailed attribution of each accused&#039;s individual role in the making of the document was not required at that threshold, and the truth of the allegation could not be finally tested then. The order quashing the proceedings was set aside and the summons order was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 18 Jul 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280569</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>