https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156559 Preventive detention was analysed on three points: omission to place the detenu's son's retraction before the detaining authority did not vitiate subjective satisfaction because the detention rested mainly on the detenu's own statements and seized documents, so no suppression of vital material was shown; the representation was disposed of within an explained timeframe, and no unexplained or inordinate delay was established; and delay in service of the order, caused by the detenu's absconding despite repeated tracing efforts, did not break the live and proximate link between the prejudicial activity and detention. On these grounds, the detention was upheld and the challenge failed. en-us Fri, 18 Aug 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 20 Dec 2017 16:39:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156559 Preventive detention was analysed on three points: omission to place the detenu's son's retraction before the detaining authority did not vitiate subjective satisfaction because the detention rested mainly on the detenu's own statements and seized documents, so no suppression of vital material was shown; the representation was disposed of within an explained timeframe, and no unexplained or inordinate delay was established; and delay in service of the order, caused by the detenu's absconding despite repeated tracing efforts, did not break the live and proximate link between the prejudicial activity and detention. On these grounds, the detention was upheld and the challenge failed. Case-Laws FEMA Fri, 18 Aug 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156559