<?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 (5) TMI 1120 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194020</link>
    <description>Preventive detention is not vitiated where the grounds and relied-upon documents are effectively communicated to the detenu in a language he understands, even without a written Bengali translation, if the record shows workable knowledge of English and oral explanation in Bengali. Delay in deciding a repetitive representation raising no new ground is not fatal when the administrative process is prompt and the delay is not inordinate or unexplained. A representation addressed only to the Advisory Board does not, by itself, create a separate obligation for the detaining authority or the Central Government to decide it when no copy was served on them. The record also showed that relevant materials were placed before the detaining authority.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 21 May 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 26 Aug 2017 10:20:58 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=486958" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (5) TMI 1120 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194020</link>
      <description>Preventive detention is not vitiated where the grounds and relied-upon documents are effectively communicated to the detenu in a language he understands, even without a written Bengali translation, if the record shows workable knowledge of English and oral explanation in Bengali. Delay in deciding a repetitive representation raising no new ground is not fatal when the administrative process is prompt and the delay is not inordinate or unexplained. A representation addressed only to the Advisory Board does not, by itself, create a separate obligation for the detaining authority or the Central Government to decide it when no copy was served on them. The record also showed that relevant materials were placed before the detaining authority.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>FEMA</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 21 May 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194020</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>