<?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>1967 (11) TMI 116 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272711</link>
    <description>The court dismissed the revision petition, upholding the Magistrate&#039;s order to hand over the currency notes to the Enforcement Directorate. It found the application under Section 19(2) of the Act invalid, the Assistant Director lacked authority to pass the order, the police seizure was lawful, and the Enforcement Directorate was entitled to custody under Section 523 of the Criminal Procedure Code.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 14 Nov 1967 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 19 Jan 2021 14:59:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=520163" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1967 (11) TMI 116 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272711</link>
      <description>The court dismissed the revision petition, upholding the Magistrate&#039;s order to hand over the currency notes to the Enforcement Directorate. It found the application under Section 19(2) of the Act invalid, the Assistant Director lacked authority to pass the order, the police seizure was lawful, and the Enforcement Directorate was entitled to custody under Section 523 of the Criminal Procedure Code.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 14 Nov 1967 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272711</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>