<?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>1992 (12) TMI 234 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290839</link>
    <description>A newspaper report, being hearsay, cannot by itself establish the factual basis for contempt action; independent admissible evidence is required to prove both the alleged statement and its contemptuous reference to pending proceedings. As no reliable proof beyond the press item was produced, the Supreme Court found no sufficient ground to initiate suo motu contempt proceedings and rejected the request for contempt notice.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 18 Dec 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 18 Oct 2021 16:37:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=625515" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1992 (12) TMI 234 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290839</link>
      <description>A newspaper report, being hearsay, cannot by itself establish the factual basis for contempt action; independent admissible evidence is required to prove both the alleged statement and its contemptuous reference to pending proceedings. As no reliable proof beyond the press item was produced, the Supreme Court found no sufficient ground to initiate suo motu contempt proceedings and rejected the request for contempt notice.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 18 Dec 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290839</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>