<?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>2022 (9) TMI 1152 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=428207</link>
    <description>The power under Section 311 CrPC to summon additional witnesses or records is to be used where the evidence is essential for a just decision and to prevent failure of justice, while preserving the opposite party&#039;s right to rebut. In a Section 138 NI Act complaint concerning proof of legally enforceable debt, the complainant sought to examine the accountant and produce income tax records to support the alleged liability. The High Court noted that the complainant had pleaded regular accounts and that the accused had already been given an opportunity for cross-examination, so no prejudice was shown. The challenge to the order allowing additional evidence was rejected and the petitions were dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 19 Sep 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 27 Sep 2022 07:35:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=691839" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (9) TMI 1152 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=428207</link>
      <description>The power under Section 311 CrPC to summon additional witnesses or records is to be used where the evidence is essential for a just decision and to prevent failure of justice, while preserving the opposite party&#039;s right to rebut. In a Section 138 NI Act complaint concerning proof of legally enforceable debt, the complainant sought to examine the accountant and produce income tax records to support the alleged liability. The High Court noted that the complainant had pleaded regular accounts and that the accused had already been given an opportunity for cross-examination, so no prejudice was shown. The challenge to the order allowing additional evidence was rejected and the petitions were dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 19 Sep 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=428207</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>