<?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>1905 (6) TMI 1 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=461462</link>
    <description>Deception under Section 415 of the Indian Penal Code may be inferred from conduct, not only express words, where a person knowingly accepts payment on a clear footing and then acts contrary to that understanding. Here, the accused accepted money tendered to discharge a mortgage debt, remained silent about any alleged different claim, and withheld the mortgage deed after payment. The conduct was treated as an implied representation that the money would be accepted in discharge of the mortgage and the deed returned. The later refusal showed that the representation was never intended to be honoured, and the conduct amounted to cheating, with conviction and sentence upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 01 Jun 1905 00:00:00 +0521</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 08 Apr 2025 10:53:26 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=812657" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1905 (6) TMI 1 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=461462</link>
      <description>Deception under Section 415 of the Indian Penal Code may be inferred from conduct, not only express words, where a person knowingly accepts payment on a clear footing and then acts contrary to that understanding. Here, the accused accepted money tendered to discharge a mortgage debt, remained silent about any alleged different claim, and withheld the mortgage deed after payment. The conduct was treated as an implied representation that the money would be accepted in discharge of the mortgage and the deed returned. The later refusal showed that the representation was never intended to be honoured, and the conduct amounted to cheating, with conviction and sentence upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 01 Jun 1905 00:00:00 +0521</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=461462</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>