<?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>2011 (11) TMI 889 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=314171</link>
    <description>A private complaint alleging false statements before a Rent Controller was held maintainable because the Rent Controller is a statutory quasi-judicial authority, not a court in the conventional sense. Since it cannot invoke the jurisdiction under section 340 CrPC, the bar under section 195(1) CrPC applicable to court complaints did not operate in the same manner. On the facts, no basis was shown to interfere with the summoning order, and the criminal proceedings were not quashed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 30 Nov 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 22 May 2024 13:21:32 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=753947" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (11) TMI 889 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=314171</link>
      <description>A private complaint alleging false statements before a Rent Controller was held maintainable because the Rent Controller is a statutory quasi-judicial authority, not a court in the conventional sense. Since it cannot invoke the jurisdiction under section 340 CrPC, the bar under section 195(1) CrPC applicable to court complaints did not operate in the same manner. On the facts, no basis was shown to interfere with the summoning order, and the criminal proceedings were not quashed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 30 Nov 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=314171</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>