<?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>1976 (11) TMI 215 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=303044</link>
    <description>A summons to produce a document does not, by itself, make the recipient a witness or authorise examination on oath; the court may require production, but not compel a non-party to attend, answer questions, or submit to cross-examination merely to locate the document. Where production is unlikely, the Code provided search powers rather than witness-style interrogation. An order directing such attendance and oath-bound questioning was therefore without authority. The revisional challenge was also maintainable because an order conclusively affecting a non-party is not necessarily interlocutory for Section 397 CrPC purposes, and the bar on revision did not apply against the appellant.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 23 Nov 1976 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 30 Jun 2022 17:50:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=683597" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1976 (11) TMI 215 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=303044</link>
      <description>A summons to produce a document does not, by itself, make the recipient a witness or authorise examination on oath; the court may require production, but not compel a non-party to attend, answer questions, or submit to cross-examination merely to locate the document. Where production is unlikely, the Code provided search powers rather than witness-style interrogation. An order directing such attendance and oath-bound questioning was therefore without authority. The revisional challenge was also maintainable because an order conclusively affecting a non-party is not necessarily interlocutory for Section 397 CrPC purposes, and the bar on revision did not apply against the appellant.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 23 Nov 1976 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=303044</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>