<?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>2024 (9) TMI 57 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=757813</link>
    <description>A prosecution based mainly on an unfinalised CAG audit report and allegations of wrongful disposal of coal rejects could not be sustained where contemporaneous contractual documents, the mining plan, washability material and prior civil findings did not disclose prima facie criminality. The Court held that the agreements required supply of washed coal and environmentally compliant disposal of rejects, but did not show any duty to treat the rejects as KPCL&#039;s saleable property. It further treated the matter as essentially civil and commercial, with no material showing criminal intent or wrongful gain. The orders framing charge and refusing discharge were therefore held unsustainable, and the discharge ought to have been allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 23 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 29 Aug 2024 14:53:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=766252" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (9) TMI 57 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=757813</link>
      <description>A prosecution based mainly on an unfinalised CAG audit report and allegations of wrongful disposal of coal rejects could not be sustained where contemporaneous contractual documents, the mining plan, washability material and prior civil findings did not disclose prima facie criminality. The Court held that the agreements required supply of washed coal and environmentally compliant disposal of rejects, but did not show any duty to treat the rejects as KPCL&#039;s saleable property. It further treated the matter as essentially civil and commercial, with no material showing criminal intent or wrongful gain. The orders framing charge and refusing discharge were therefore held unsustainable, and the discharge ought to have been allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 23 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=757813</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>