<?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>2007 (5) TMI 558 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154621</link>
    <description>The court held that the Addl. Sessions Judge had the competence to entertain anticipatory bail applications under the Customs Act, 1962, regardless of administrative instructions. However, the direction for prior notice before arrest was deemed unjustified based on Supreme Court precedents, leading to the setting aside of the Addl. Sessions Judge&#039;s order.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 30 May 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 24 Aug 2013 12:52:26 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=171652" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (5) TMI 558 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154621</link>
      <description>The court held that the Addl. Sessions Judge had the competence to entertain anticipatory bail applications under the Customs Act, 1962, regardless of administrative instructions. However, the direction for prior notice before arrest was deemed unjustified based on Supreme Court precedents, leading to the setting aside of the Addl. Sessions Judge&#039;s order.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 30 May 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154621</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>