Development agreements require legal possession or effective enjoyment for capital gains transfer; permissive possession and deferred consideration de...
Prolonged sterilisation of development rights supports capital-gains treatment, while business-income disallowances cannot govern capital-gains comput...
Additional evidence in transfer pricing dispute leads to fresh examination, while tax deductions, TDS credit, fee and refund interest require verifica...
Category II AIF pass-through taxation preserves non-business income character; investment receipts cannot be reclassified without applying recognised ...
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.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
