<?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>2025 (7) TMI 629 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774561</link>
    <description>Section 91 CrPC permits production only of documents necessary or desirable for trial and believed to be in a person&#039;s possession or power; it cannot support a roving or fishing inquiry. In a cheque dishonour complaint, documents concerning company affairs, third-party entities, redundant URLs and other materials not shown to be relevant to adjudication were properly declined. By contrast, the income tax returns and the complainant&#039;s bank statements were sufficiently connected to the complaint and available for production, so the limited direction for their production was justified. No legal infirmity was found in refusing the remaining documents.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 28 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 11 Jul 2025 08:39:44 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=835284" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (7) TMI 629 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774561</link>
      <description>Section 91 CrPC permits production only of documents necessary or desirable for trial and believed to be in a person&#039;s possession or power; it cannot support a roving or fishing inquiry. In a cheque dishonour complaint, documents concerning company affairs, third-party entities, redundant URLs and other materials not shown to be relevant to adjudication were properly declined. By contrast, the income tax returns and the complainant&#039;s bank statements were sufficiently connected to the complaint and available for production, so the limited direction for their production was justified. No legal infirmity was found in refusing the remaining documents.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 28 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774561</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>