<?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 (9) TMI 1833 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=470211</link>
    <description>Section 329 of the Code of Criminal Procedure requires the trial court first to determine and record whether an accused is of unsound mind or otherwise incapable of making a defence. In the absence of material showing mental incapacity, a declaration of unsoundness of mind, or immobilisation, treatment in another city may justify relief from personal travel but not attendance by video conferencing from a residence. Given the seriousness of the alleged offence, participation through an institutional court video-conferencing facility was required. Residential video-conferencing attendance was therefore impermissible, while attendance through the designated City Civil Court facility was permitted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 23 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 20 Jul 2026 20:32:28 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=912606" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (9) TMI 1833 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=470211</link>
      <description>Section 329 of the Code of Criminal Procedure requires the trial court first to determine and record whether an accused is of unsound mind or otherwise incapable of making a defence. In the absence of material showing mental incapacity, a declaration of unsoundness of mind, or immobilisation, treatment in another city may justify relief from personal travel but not attendance by video conferencing from a residence. Given the seriousness of the alleged offence, participation through an institutional court video-conferencing facility was required. Residential video-conferencing attendance was therefore impermissible, while attendance through the designated City Civil Court facility was permitted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Money Laundering</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 23 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=470211</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>