https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105903 Pre-execution writ review of a preventive detention order under the COFEPOSA is narrowly confined and cannot be used to reappraise sufficiency of material or disputed factual claims. Interference is permissible only in recognised exceptional cases, such as lack of authority, wrong person, wrong purpose, or vague or irrelevant grounds. Allegations of delay in execution, non-consideration of representation, absence of material, and reliance on a revocation notification were treated as disputed or unsuitable for determination before execution. No recognised exception was shown, so pre-execution interference was unavailable and the challenge to the detention order failed. en-us Tue, 30 Jan 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 10 Mar 2012 13:31:12 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105903 Pre-execution writ review of a preventive detention order under the COFEPOSA is narrowly confined and cannot be used to reappraise sufficiency of material or disputed factual claims. Interference is permissible only in recognised exceptional cases, such as lack of authority, wrong person, wrong purpose, or vague or irrelevant grounds. Allegations of delay in execution, non-consideration of representation, absence of material, and reliance on a revocation notification were treated as disputed or unsuitable for determination before execution. No recognised exception was shown, so pre-execution interference was unavailable and the challenge to the detention order failed. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 30 Jan 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105903