Receipt of immovable property requires actual possession or enjoyment; redevelopment allotments exchanged for tenancy rights fall outside deemed incom...
Section 80P deduction covers Souharda credit societies, including qualifying surplus-deposit interest, subject to member KYC verification for cash dep...
Transfer-pricing benchmarking and capital-receipt principles sustained taxpayer relief, while unsupported property-advance write-offs remained disallo...
A habeas corpus petition challenging arrest and detention...
Habeas corpus challenge to arrest safeguards remains maintainable, but substantial compliance with reasons-to-believe requirement defeats the petition.
Contents
Summary
Note
Bookmark
Share
✓ Copied successfully !
Print
Print Options
For full text, please login
Login to TaxTMI
Verification Pending
The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on
A habeas corpus petition challenging arrest and detention remained maintainable despite a judicial remand order where the grievance was breach of a mandatory statutory arrest safeguard affecting personal liberty. The Court held that while a remand order is not ordinarily assailable on merits by habeas corpus, the writ can be invoked to test whether arrest complied with the statutory precondition of recording reasons to believe. On the merits, the Court found that the competent authority had recorded the reasons, authorised arrest, and supplied them in substance to the arrestee; no rule required a verbatim signed copy. The challenge to arrest and custody was therefore rejected.
A habeas corpus petition challenging arrest and detention remained maintainable despite a judicial remand order where the grievance was breach of a mandatory statutory arrest safeguard affecting personal liberty. The Court held that while a remand order is not ordinarily assailable on merits by habeas corpus, the writ can be invoked to test whether arrest complied with the statutory precondition of recording reasons to believe. On the merits, the Court found that the competent authority had recorded the reasons, authorised arrest, and supplied them in substance to the arrestee; no rule required a verbatim signed copy. The challenge to arrest and custody was therefore rejected.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.