<?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>2002 (5) TMI 850 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175838</link>
    <description>Minor defects in the communication of preventive detention grounds do not vitiate detention unless prejudice is shown; an unsigned copy of the last page and unparticularised claims of illegible documents were insufficient to defeat the detenu&#039;s right to make an effective representation under Article 22(5). Delay in passing the detention order was explained by continuing investigation and did not break the live nexus, but the unexplained delay in executing the order, without adequate particulars of service efforts, undermined the genuineness of the detention decision. The detention was therefore invalidated on the ground of unexplained delay in execution.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 31 May 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 07 Dec 2015 10:14:48 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=407876" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (5) TMI 850 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175838</link>
      <description>Minor defects in the communication of preventive detention grounds do not vitiate detention unless prejudice is shown; an unsigned copy of the last page and unparticularised claims of illegible documents were insufficient to defeat the detenu&#039;s right to make an effective representation under Article 22(5). Delay in passing the detention order was explained by continuing investigation and did not break the live nexus, but the unexplained delay in executing the order, without adequate particulars of service efforts, undermined the genuineness of the detention decision. The detention was therefore invalidated on the ground of unexplained delay in execution.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>FEMA</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 31 May 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175838</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>