<?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>2021 (2) TMI 754 - TELANGANA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=404262</link>
    <description>A private complaint under Section 200 CrPC may be instituted through a duly authorised power of attorney holder if the holder has knowledge of the transaction and the complaint reflects that basis. Here, the record showed express authorisation to file complaints and a specific assertion that the holder was acquainted with the facts, so the objection to locus standi was not sustainable. The complaint was therefore maintainable and could not be returned solely on that ground.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 05 Feb 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 19 Feb 2021 13:48:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=636801" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (2) TMI 754 - TELANGANA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=404262</link>
      <description>A private complaint under Section 200 CrPC may be instituted through a duly authorised power of attorney holder if the holder has knowledge of the transaction and the complaint reflects that basis. Here, the record showed express authorisation to file complaints and a specific assertion that the holder was acquainted with the facts, so the objection to locus standi was not sustainable. The complaint was therefore maintainable and could not be returned solely on that ground.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 05 Feb 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=404262</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>