<?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>1972 (2) TMI 88 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156084</link>
    <description>Where a statute requires confirmation of a preventive detention order within three months from the date of detention, the date of detention is excluded in computing time and the last day is included. Applying that rule, the confirmation order was made within the prescribed period, so the detention was validly confirmed and the objection that it was time-barred was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 01 Feb 1972 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 06 Mar 2014 12:29:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=173111" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1972 (2) TMI 88 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156084</link>
      <description>Where a statute requires confirmation of a preventive detention order within three months from the date of detention, the date of detention is excluded in computing time and the last day is included. Applying that rule, the confirmation order was made within the prescribed period, so the detention was validly confirmed and the objection that it was time-barred was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 01 Feb 1972 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156084</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>