<?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 (11) TMI 67 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=414286</link>
    <description>The court quashed the summoning order and proceedings against the appellant and Vinod Singh due to the failure to prosecute the company as the principal offender, emphasizing the necessity of including the company in the prosecution to establish vicarious liability. The court stressed the importance of specific allegations and judicial discretion in initiating prosecution, highlighting the need for responsible exercise of prosecutorial discretion to avoid unjust prosecution.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 29 Oct 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 20 Aug 2022 15:08:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=660102" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (11) TMI 67 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=414286</link>
      <description>The court quashed the summoning order and proceedings against the appellant and Vinod Singh due to the failure to prosecute the company as the principal offender, emphasizing the necessity of including the company in the prosecution to establish vicarious liability. The court stressed the importance of specific allegations and judicial discretion in initiating prosecution, highlighting the need for responsible exercise of prosecutorial discretion to avoid unjust prosecution.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 29 Oct 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=414286</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>