<?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>2002 (4) TMI 994 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302993</link>
    <description>The High Court condoned the delay in filing the appeal but refused to grant leave to appeal against the acquittal. The court upheld the trial court&#039;s judgment, emphasizing the presumption of innocence and the need for compelling reasons to overturn an acquittal. The application for leave to file the appeal was rejected as the High Court found the trial court&#039;s reasoning neither perverse nor implausible, concluding that no other view was warranted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 17 Apr 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 28 Jun 2022 12:56:39 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=683362" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (4) TMI 994 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302993</link>
      <description>The High Court condoned the delay in filing the appeal but refused to grant leave to appeal against the acquittal. The court upheld the trial court&#039;s judgment, emphasizing the presumption of innocence and the need for compelling reasons to overturn an acquittal. The application for leave to file the appeal was rejected as the High Court found the trial court&#039;s reasoning neither perverse nor implausible, concluding that no other view was warranted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Money Laundering</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 17 Apr 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302993</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>