<?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>2020 (6) TMI 663 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=396288</link>
    <description>The complaint did not disclose the essential ingredients of criminal breach of trust, cheating, or forgery because the record showed delivery and registration of the vehicle, followed by repeated servicing, rather than entrustment, dishonest misappropriation, or inducement at the inception of the transaction. The dispute arose from a commercial sale and later dissatisfaction with vehicle performance and servicing, which was substantially civil in nature. Treating it as a criminal case would give a criminal colour to a contractual dispute, and continuation of the proceeding would amount to abuse of process of court. The complaint and summoning order were therefore quashed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 18 Jun 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 29 Jun 2020 09:26:33 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=616178" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (6) TMI 663 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=396288</link>
      <description>The complaint did not disclose the essential ingredients of criminal breach of trust, cheating, or forgery because the record showed delivery and registration of the vehicle, followed by repeated servicing, rather than entrustment, dishonest misappropriation, or inducement at the inception of the transaction. The dispute arose from a commercial sale and later dissatisfaction with vehicle performance and servicing, which was substantially civil in nature. Treating it as a criminal case would give a criminal colour to a contractual dispute, and continuation of the proceeding would amount to abuse of process of court. The complaint and summoning order were therefore quashed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 18 Jun 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=396288</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>