<?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 (10) TMI 2815 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298509</link>
    <description>Transfer of a criminal investigation to CBI or a fresh SIT is warranted only in exceptional cases where unfairness or failure of justice is shown; a party has no right to insist on a particular investigating agency. On the facts described, both criminal complaints had already been investigated, chargesheets were filed, and the record did not disclose circumstances justifying removal of the investigation from the State machinery. Criminal contempt requires real and substantial interference with the administration of justice, not merely adverse allegations, consultations with others, or exchange of documents and e-mails. The contempt request was also treated as time-barred under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, so no contempt action was initiated.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 13 Oct 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 07 Nov 2021 11:04:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=660334" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (10) TMI 2815 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298509</link>
      <description>Transfer of a criminal investigation to CBI or a fresh SIT is warranted only in exceptional cases where unfairness or failure of justice is shown; a party has no right to insist on a particular investigating agency. On the facts described, both criminal complaints had already been investigated, chargesheets were filed, and the record did not disclose circumstances justifying removal of the investigation from the State machinery. Criminal contempt requires real and substantial interference with the administration of justice, not merely adverse allegations, consultations with others, or exchange of documents and e-mails. The contempt request was also treated as time-barred under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, so no contempt action was initiated.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 13 Oct 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298509</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>