Mis-declaration and Concealment: confiscation affirmed, transaction value re-determined and mandatory penalty sustained; redemption allowed on payment...
Page of 4811
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
5561 to 5580 of 96208 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Non-provision of the grounds of arrest in the manner required by law rendered the arrest and continued detention unsustainable. The High Court held that the respondents' explanation of clerical error did not cure the decisive defect, because the petitioner had not been furnished the grounds of arrest as mandated by the Supreme Court and followed by the Court. As that requirement was not complied with, the remand order founded on the arrest was liable to be quashed. The remand order was quashed, the writ petition was allowed, and the respondents were given liberty to proceed afresh in accordance with law.
Non-provision of the grounds of arrest in the manner required by law rendered the arrest and continued detention unsustainable. The High Court held that the respondents' explanation of clerical error did not cure the decisive defect, because the petitioner had not been furnished the grounds of arrest as mandated by the Supreme Court and followed by the Court. As that requirement was not complied with, the remand order founded on the arrest was liable to be quashed. The remand order was quashed, the writ petition was allowed, and the respondents were given liberty to proceed afresh in accordance with law.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.