<?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>2015 (8) TMI 1521 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=294674</link>
    <description>The Madras High Court noted that police powers to register and investigate offences under the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1997 arise from the police law framework and the Code of Criminal Procedure, while the Government&#039;s Economic Offences Wing functions as an administrative arrangement for effective investigation. It construed &quot;financial establishment&quot; as covering only entities carrying on the business of receiving deposits, not every company that merely accepts deposits incidentally, and recognised the Act&#039;s overriding effect over inconsistent laws. It also applied the rule against multiple FIRs only where there is sameness of occurrence, accepting later complaints based on different depositors and transactions while directing that further complaints be treated as statements rather than fresh FIRs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 06 Aug 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 27 Apr 2021 12:14:43 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=642812" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (8) TMI 1521 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=294674</link>
      <description>The Madras High Court noted that police powers to register and investigate offences under the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1997 arise from the police law framework and the Code of Criminal Procedure, while the Government&#039;s Economic Offences Wing functions as an administrative arrangement for effective investigation. It construed &quot;financial establishment&quot; as covering only entities carrying on the business of receiving deposits, not every company that merely accepts deposits incidentally, and recognised the Act&#039;s overriding effect over inconsistent laws. It also applied the rule against multiple FIRs only where there is sameness of occurrence, accepting later complaints based on different depositors and transactions while directing that further complaints be treated as statements rather than fresh FIRs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 06 Aug 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=294674</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>