<?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>2016 (6) TMI 1183 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191249</link>
    <description>Preventive detention may be vitiated where the detention order is executed after an inordinate, unexplained delay despite the authorities knowing the detenu&#039;s whereabouts, because this breaks the required proximate nexus with the need for immediate detention. The article also notes that non-placement of transfer-related material did not independently establish invalid subjective satisfaction on the stated facts, as the authorities already knew the posting details. Separately, failure to supply a workable means to view relied-upon CCTV CDs, along with illegible documents, denied a meaningful opportunity of representation and breached Article 22(5).</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 02 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 07 May 2026 12:23:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=462785" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (6) TMI 1183 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191249</link>
      <description>Preventive detention may be vitiated where the detention order is executed after an inordinate, unexplained delay despite the authorities knowing the detenu&#039;s whereabouts, because this breaks the required proximate nexus with the need for immediate detention. The article also notes that non-placement of transfer-related material did not independently establish invalid subjective satisfaction on the stated facts, as the authorities already knew the posting details. Separately, failure to supply a workable means to view relied-upon CCTV CDs, along with illegible documents, denied a meaningful opportunity of representation and breached Article 22(5).</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 02 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191249</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>