<?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>2006 (8) TMI 585 - Delhi High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170895</link>
    <description>Preventive detention was upheld despite delay in issuance and execution because the alleged foreign exchange and forged-document activity was clandestine, continuing, and under active investigation, so the live nexus with the prejudicial conduct had not snapped. Non-placement or non-supply of collateral material did not vitiate the order because only documents forming the basis of detention had to be considered and supplied, and no prejudice was shown from omission of the writ petitions or account-freezing order. The detention order also survived the challenge of non-application of mind, as the authority had considered the core material on transactions, forged forms, bank records, and investigative steps.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 22 Aug 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 25 Jun 2015 18:12:33 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=388491" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (8) TMI 585 - Delhi High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170895</link>
      <description>Preventive detention was upheld despite delay in issuance and execution because the alleged foreign exchange and forged-document activity was clandestine, continuing, and under active investigation, so the live nexus with the prejudicial conduct had not snapped. Non-placement or non-supply of collateral material did not vitiate the order because only documents forming the basis of detention had to be considered and supplied, and no prejudice was shown from omission of the writ petitions or account-freezing order. The detention order also survived the challenge of non-application of mind, as the authority had considered the core material on transactions, forged forms, bank records, and investigative steps.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 22 Aug 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170895</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>