<?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>2020 (2) TMI 1565 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI BENCH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=297897</link>
    <description>Proceedings under Section 340 CrPC require the alleged false or fabricated document to have been used in judicial proceedings and to have materially affected the adjudication. A photocopy of an MoU that was not the basis of any decision and on which no finding was returned did not satisfy that statutory threshold. On those facts, the tribunal held that an enquiry under Section 340 was not maintainable and dismissed the application.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 03 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 29 Sep 2021 11:02:49 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=657112" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (2) TMI 1565 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI BENCH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=297897</link>
      <description>Proceedings under Section 340 CrPC require the alleged false or fabricated document to have been used in judicial proceedings and to have materially affected the adjudication. A photocopy of an MoU that was not the basis of any decision and on which no finding was returned did not satisfy that statutory threshold. On those facts, the tribunal held that an enquiry under Section 340 was not maintainable and dismissed the application.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 03 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=297897</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>