<?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 (8) TMI 1384 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458189</link>
    <description>An order adding a person as an accused under Section 319 CrPC can be sustained only if the court, on evidence recorded in inquiry or trial, records reasoned satisfaction that the person appears to have committed an offence and should be tried with the existing accused, while considering the stage of trial and the consequences of a de novo proceeding. For alleged liability under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, partner liability also depends on evidence that the partner was in charge of and responsible for the business at the relevant time. The High Court failed to examine these statutory requirements and the evidentiary basis for the proposed charges, so the order was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh decision.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 10 Aug 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 14 Oct 2024 17:34:05 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=772761" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (8) TMI 1384 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458189</link>
      <description>An order adding a person as an accused under Section 319 CrPC can be sustained only if the court, on evidence recorded in inquiry or trial, records reasoned satisfaction that the person appears to have committed an offence and should be tried with the existing accused, while considering the stage of trial and the consequences of a de novo proceeding. For alleged liability under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, partner liability also depends on evidence that the partner was in charge of and responsible for the business at the relevant time. The High Court failed to examine these statutory requirements and the evidentiary basis for the proposed charges, so the order was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh decision.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 10 Aug 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458189</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>