<?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>2015 (9) TMI 1494 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188428</link>
    <description>Preventive detention was upheld where the delay in issuing the detention order was satisfactorily explained by continuing investigation and scrutiny of material, so the proximate live link was not broken. The detaining authority&#039;s view that the detenue was likely to be released on bail was supported by relevant facts, including custody status, an expiring period for filing the complaint, and a prior rejection of bail, so the satisfaction was not based on conjecture. Alleged non-placement of the complaint and delayed supply of some documents did not invalidate the order because the complaint was not before the authority when the order was made, substantial documents were supplied, and the detention was supported by independent and separable grounds.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 04 Sep 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 01 Dec 2016 10:20:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=450110" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (9) TMI 1494 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188428</link>
      <description>Preventive detention was upheld where the delay in issuing the detention order was satisfactorily explained by continuing investigation and scrutiny of material, so the proximate live link was not broken. The detaining authority&#039;s view that the detenue was likely to be released on bail was supported by relevant facts, including custody status, an expiring period for filing the complaint, and a prior rejection of bail, so the satisfaction was not based on conjecture. Alleged non-placement of the complaint and delayed supply of some documents did not invalidate the order because the complaint was not before the authority when the order was made, substantial documents were supplied, and the detention was supported by independent and separable grounds.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>FEMA</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 04 Sep 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188428</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>