<?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>1986 (11) TMI 263 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73640</link>
    <description>The Gujarat High Court quashed a detention order under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, leading to a Special Appeal Application by the State of Gujarat. The delay in serving the order was due to the detenu&#039;s absconding. The High Court found that the omission of co-conspirators&#039; retractions before the detaining authority did not vitiate the order, as the detaining authority had considered them. While an affidavit by the detaining authority was not deemed necessary, detailed notes and an affidavit by a Deputy Secretary sufficed. The case was remanded to the High Court for further consideration of unresolved issues.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 20 Nov 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 29 Jul 2014 16:03:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=111919" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1986 (11) TMI 263 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73640</link>
      <description>The Gujarat High Court quashed a detention order under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, leading to a Special Appeal Application by the State of Gujarat. The delay in serving the order was due to the detenu&#039;s absconding. The High Court found that the omission of co-conspirators&#039; retractions before the detaining authority did not vitiate the order, as the detaining authority had considered them. While an affidavit by the detaining authority was not deemed necessary, detailed notes and an affidavit by a Deputy Secretary sufficed. The case was remanded to the High Court for further consideration of unresolved issues.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 20 Nov 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73640</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>