<?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>2010 (10) TMI 1246 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308963</link>
    <description>Delay in filing a criminal complaint may be condoned under Section 473 CrPC where the delay is properly explained or where condonation is necessary in the interests of justice, and those requirements are disjunctive rather than cumulative. The Court accepted the prosecution&#039;s explanation that it first obtained legal opinion on whether a corporate entity could be arrayed as an accused, treating that step as bona fide diligence rather than negligence. The plea based on speedy trial was rejected because the circumstances justified extension of limitation. The orders condoning delay and sustaining the complaint were therefore upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 08 Oct 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 03 Aug 2023 14:47:28 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=721507" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (10) TMI 1246 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308963</link>
      <description>Delay in filing a criminal complaint may be condoned under Section 473 CrPC where the delay is properly explained or where condonation is necessary in the interests of justice, and those requirements are disjunctive rather than cumulative. The Court accepted the prosecution&#039;s explanation that it first obtained legal opinion on whether a corporate entity could be arrayed as an accused, treating that step as bona fide diligence rather than negligence. The plea based on speedy trial was rejected because the circumstances justified extension of limitation. The orders condoning delay and sustaining the complaint were therefore upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 08 Oct 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308963</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>