<?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>2004 (11) TMI 605 - Calcutta High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280571</link>
    <description>At the pre-process stage, a Magistrate need only determine whether the complaint and supporting statements disclose sufficient ground for proceeding; it is not necessary to assess likely conviction. Allegations of inducement, false representation, denial of a corporate guarantee, and concerted conduct were held to disclose a prima facie case under the charged offences, and the mere availability of civil remedies did not bar criminal process. The threshold dismissal was therefore unsustainable because it rested on a bare, reasonless conclusion that no ingredients were made out and that the dispute was only civil. The revisional challenge succeeded, the dismissal order was set aside, and process was directed to continue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 29 Nov 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 May 2019 17:40:02 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=570708" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (11) TMI 605 - Calcutta High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280571</link>
      <description>At the pre-process stage, a Magistrate need only determine whether the complaint and supporting statements disclose sufficient ground for proceeding; it is not necessary to assess likely conviction. Allegations of inducement, false representation, denial of a corporate guarantee, and concerted conduct were held to disclose a prima facie case under the charged offences, and the mere availability of civil remedies did not bar criminal process. The threshold dismissal was therefore unsustainable because it rested on a bare, reasonless conclusion that no ingredients were made out and that the dispute was only civil. The revisional challenge succeeded, the dismissal order was set aside, and process was directed to continue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 29 Nov 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280571</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>