<?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 (9) TMI 1749 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308054</link>
    <description>A Special Judge validly appointed for a corruption-related 2G scam case could also try connected Indian Penal Code offences arising from the same transaction, because the appointment and related notification were sustained and extended to linked offences. The challenge to jurisdiction failed. Joinder of trials remained a matter of judicial discretion, not an enforceable right of the accused, and refusal of a joint trial was justified where the main trial was already advanced, many witnesses had been examined, and clubbing would risk delay, duplication and prejudice. The challenge to the refusal of joint trial therefore failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 29 Sep 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 27 May 2023 09:34:21 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=714822" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (9) TMI 1749 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308054</link>
      <description>A Special Judge validly appointed for a corruption-related 2G scam case could also try connected Indian Penal Code offences arising from the same transaction, because the appointment and related notification were sustained and extended to linked offences. The challenge to jurisdiction failed. Joinder of trials remained a matter of judicial discretion, not an enforceable right of the accused, and refusal of a joint trial was justified where the main trial was already advanced, many witnesses had been examined, and clubbing would risk delay, duplication and prejudice. The challenge to the refusal of joint trial therefore failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 29 Sep 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308054</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>