<?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>1982 (10) TMI 206 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165470</link>
    <description>Preventive detention safeguards under Article 22(5) require the detaining authority to supply the detenu, in a language he understands, all grounds and relied-upon materials, including incorporated documents and statements, so that he can make an effective representation. The text states that translation is ordinarily to be furnished within five days and, only for genuine exceptional circumstances recorded in writing, within fifteen days. Delay in supplying Urdu translations was found unjustified, and the failure to provide several translated relied-upon documents was treated as prejudicial. The detention was therefore held illegal and the order was quashed for breach of Article 22(5) and section 3(3) of the COFEPOSA Act.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 13 Oct 1982 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 01 Aug 2014 12:35:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=360222" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1982 (10) TMI 206 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165470</link>
      <description>Preventive detention safeguards under Article 22(5) require the detaining authority to supply the detenu, in a language he understands, all grounds and relied-upon materials, including incorporated documents and statements, so that he can make an effective representation. The text states that translation is ordinarily to be furnished within five days and, only for genuine exceptional circumstances recorded in writing, within fifteen days. Delay in supplying Urdu translations was found unjustified, and the failure to provide several translated relied-upon documents was treated as prejudicial. The detention was therefore held illegal and the order was quashed for breach of Article 22(5) and section 3(3) of the COFEPOSA Act.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>FEMA</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 13 Oct 1982 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165470</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>