https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191203 Pre-execution interference with a preventive detention order remains confined to the narrow recognised exceptions, namely that the order is not under the statute, is against the wrong person, is for a wrong purpose, rests on vague or irrelevant grounds, or lacks authority. The Delhi High Court treated those exceptions as exhaustive and held that collateral factual disputes, settlement proceedings, extraterritoriality objections, and delay in execution do not by themselves justify quashing at that stage. It also applied the territorial jurisdiction and forum conveniens principles but found them insufficient to non-suit the petitioners. The challenge therefore failed because no recognised pre-execution exception was made out. en-us Mon, 19 May 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 24 Mar 2017 16:47:27 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191203 Pre-execution interference with a preventive detention order remains confined to the narrow recognised exceptions, namely that the order is not under the statute, is against the wrong person, is for a wrong purpose, rests on vague or irrelevant grounds, or lacks authority. The Delhi High Court treated those exceptions as exhaustive and held that collateral factual disputes, settlement proceedings, extraterritoriality objections, and delay in execution do not by themselves justify quashing at that stage. It also applied the territorial jurisdiction and forum conveniens principles but found them insufficient to non-suit the petitioners. The challenge therefore failed because no recognised pre-execution exception was made out. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 19 May 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191203