https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=264592 A pre-execution challenge to a preventive detention order was held maintainable, but the jurisdiction was described as narrow and to be exercised sparingly. Delay in execution did not justify quashing where the proposed detenue was treated as an absconder and had evaded service; such a person cannot rely on passage of time to claim the order had become stale. The Court also held that, at the pre-execution stage, it could examine legality but not the sufficiency of the material before the detaining authority, so a plea that vital documents were not placed for subjective satisfaction was not open to scrutiny before service of the detention grounds. en-us Fri, 29 May 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 28 Sep 2015 18:07:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=264592 A pre-execution challenge to a preventive detention order was held maintainable, but the jurisdiction was described as narrow and to be exercised sparingly. Delay in execution did not justify quashing where the proposed detenue was treated as an absconder and had evaded service; such a person cannot rely on passage of time to claim the order had become stale. The Court also held that, at the pre-execution stage, it could examine legality but not the sufficiency of the material before the detaining authority, so a plea that vital documents were not placed for subjective satisfaction was not open to scrutiny before service of the detention grounds. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 29 May 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=264592