<?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>2003 (5) TMI 416 - HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109583</link>
    <description>Seizure of documents under section 38 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 was treated as outside the six-month custody limit in section 41, because that limit applies only to seizures covered by section 41. Adjudication proceedings were held to have commenced when a preliminary show-cause notice was issued under rule 3 of the Adjudication Proceedings and Appeal Rules, 1974, followed by hearing notices. Once proceedings had commenced, the seized documents could be retained so long as they were required for the proceedings, and the petitioner&#039;s non-appearance could not support a complaint of prolonged retention.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 05 May 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 10 Apr 2012 18:19:13 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=146600" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (5) TMI 416 - HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109583</link>
      <description>Seizure of documents under section 38 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 was treated as outside the six-month custody limit in section 41, because that limit applies only to seizures covered by section 41. Adjudication proceedings were held to have commenced when a preliminary show-cause notice was issued under rule 3 of the Adjudication Proceedings and Appeal Rules, 1974, followed by hearing notices. Once proceedings had commenced, the seized documents could be retained so long as they were required for the proceedings, and the petitioner&#039;s non-appearance could not support a complaint of prolonged retention.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 05 May 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109583</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>