https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=180856 The detention order was upheld because the remand order had in fact been placed before the detaining authority through the sponsoring authority, and the grounds of detention recorded both the remand and extension of custody. The absence of a forwarding letter or additional affidavit was treated as a mere technical defect that did not prejudice the decision-making process or vitiate the detention. The High Court was therefore wrong to quash the detention order on that basis. en-us Thu, 06 Jul 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 05 Jul 2016 18:28:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=180856 The detention order was upheld because the remand order had in fact been placed before the detaining authority through the sponsoring authority, and the grounds of detention recorded both the remand and extension of custody. The absence of a forwarding letter or additional affidavit was treated as a mere technical defect that did not prejudice the decision-making process or vitiate the detention. The High Court was therefore wrong to quash the detention order on that basis. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 06 Jul 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=180856