<?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 (11) TMI 110 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761124</link>
    <description>Anticipatory bail was granted in a prosecution alleging cheating, forgery and misappropriation arising from business ledger entries, invoices and account statements, because the dispute was substantially accounting-related and the investigation had already progressed. The applicants had cooperated during interim protection and furnished available documents, while the investigators had secured the relevant ledgers and taken Chartered Accountant assistance. The Court held that criminal process could not be used as a means of money recovery, and concluded that custodial interrogation was not necessary. For the third applicant, the Court also noted his earlier resignation and that nothing further remained to be recovered from him.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 16 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 06 Nov 2024 08:34:22 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=776676" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (11) TMI 110 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761124</link>
      <description>Anticipatory bail was granted in a prosecution alleging cheating, forgery and misappropriation arising from business ledger entries, invoices and account statements, because the dispute was substantially accounting-related and the investigation had already progressed. The applicants had cooperated during interim protection and furnished available documents, while the investigators had secured the relevant ledgers and taken Chartered Accountant assistance. The Court held that criminal process could not be used as a means of money recovery, and concluded that custodial interrogation was not necessary. For the third applicant, the Court also noted his earlier resignation and that nothing further remained to be recovered from him.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 16 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761124</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>