<?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>2018 (4) TMI 1878 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296835</link>
    <description>The Appellate Court allowed the respondent&#039;s additional evidence and documents in a Criminal Appeal under Section 391 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Despite objections regarding the nature and timing of the evidence, the Court upheld the decision, emphasizing its relevance to the defense. The Court dismissed the petitioner&#039;s revisions, affirming the validity of the additional evidence submitted by the respondent.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 25 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 09 Aug 2021 08:52:35 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=652026" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (4) TMI 1878 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296835</link>
      <description>The Appellate Court allowed the respondent&#039;s additional evidence and documents in a Criminal Appeal under Section 391 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Despite objections regarding the nature and timing of the evidence, the Court upheld the decision, emphasizing its relevance to the defense. The Court dismissed the petitioner&#039;s revisions, affirming the validity of the additional evidence submitted by the respondent.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 25 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296835</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>