https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109364 Pre-execution interference with a preventive detention order is confined to narrow exceptional grounds, because such detention depends on the detaining authority's satisfaction. Delay in execution does not by itself justify quashing where the lapse of time was caused by the proposed detenu's own court-obtained stay, and the detenu cannot rely on that restraint to defeat the order. Authorities dealing with post-execution detention or materially different facts cannot be treated as governing the pre-execution stage. On those principles, the detention order was not liable to be quashed for passage of time, and the High Court's interference was unsustainable. en-us Mon, 16 Feb 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 24 Jun 2014 10:13:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109364 Pre-execution interference with a preventive detention order is confined to narrow exceptional grounds, because such detention depends on the detaining authority's satisfaction. Delay in execution does not by itself justify quashing where the lapse of time was caused by the proposed detenu's own court-obtained stay, and the detenu cannot rely on that restraint to defeat the order. Authorities dealing with post-execution detention or materially different facts cannot be treated as governing the pre-execution stage. On those principles, the detention order was not liable to be quashed for passage of time, and the High Court's interference was unsustainable. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 16 Feb 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109364