<?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>2012 (11) TMI 1313 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299661</link>
    <description>The SC allowed the appeal, overturning the HC&#039;s judgment, and quashed the criminal proceedings against the appellant. It determined that the allegations did not constitute an offence under Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, as the evidence lacked the requisite mens rea for criminal liability.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 09 Nov 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 26 Mar 2024 10:01:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=665072" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (11) TMI 1313 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299661</link>
      <description>The SC allowed the appeal, overturning the HC&#039;s judgment, and quashed the criminal proceedings against the appellant. It determined that the allegations did not constitute an offence under Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, as the evidence lacked the requisite mens rea for criminal liability.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 09 Nov 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299661</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>