<?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>1987 (4) TMI 57 - DELHI High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=25567</link>
    <description>Criminal breach of trust requires entrustment of property or dominion over it, followed by dishonest misappropriation or conversion in violation of law or contract. In relation to gratuity, employees have no proprietary interest in any created fund and the employer&#039;s liability is only to pay gratuity on qualifying events; the Payment of Gratuity Act operates as a complete code, and income-tax rules on approved gratuity arrangements do not create entrustment in favour of employees. On the facts, no material showed entrustment to the company or dishonest conversion for its own use, and the ingredients of cheating under Section 418 IPC were also absent, so the complaint could not justify summoning and its dismissal was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 10 Apr 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 29 Jan 2010 15:03:43 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=64565" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1987 (4) TMI 57 - DELHI High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=25567</link>
      <description>Criminal breach of trust requires entrustment of property or dominion over it, followed by dishonest misappropriation or conversion in violation of law or contract. In relation to gratuity, employees have no proprietary interest in any created fund and the employer&#039;s liability is only to pay gratuity on qualifying events; the Payment of Gratuity Act operates as a complete code, and income-tax rules on approved gratuity arrangements do not create entrustment in favour of employees. On the facts, no material showed entrustment to the company or dishonest conversion for its own use, and the ingredients of cheating under Section 418 IPC were also absent, so the complaint could not justify summoning and its dismissal was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 10 Apr 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=25567</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>