Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
Page of 4809
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
561 to 580 of 96177 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Judicial review of arrest under special statutes is limited to examining compliance with statutory and constitutional safeguards, not the sufficiency of the material supporting the arresting authority's belief. On the record, the Court noted that reasons to believe and grounds of arrest were documented, digitally signed, served in Hindi, and acknowledged, while arrest intimation was also communicated to the petitioner's wife; it therefore found no violation of Articles 21 or 22. The remand order was upheld because the Magistrate expressly recorded compliance with Sections 47 and 48 of the BNSS and found the arrest justified, so the objection that it was non-speaking or contrary to natural justice failed.
Judicial review of arrest under special statutes is limited to examining compliance with statutory and constitutional safeguards, not the sufficiency of the material supporting the arresting authority's belief. On the record, the Court noted that reasons to believe and grounds of arrest were documented, digitally signed, served in Hindi, and acknowledged, while arrest intimation was also communicated to the petitioner's wife; it therefore found no violation of Articles 21 or 22. The remand order was upheld because the Magistrate expressly recorded compliance with Sections 47 and 48 of the BNSS and found the arrest justified, so the objection that it was non-speaking or contrary to natural justice failed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.