https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273697 The Court dismissed the petitions challenging the detention orders, rejecting arguments of paucity of time, unexplained delay, absence of prejudicial acts, and insufficiency of material. It found that the detaining authority had sufficient time to consider the material, the delay was justified due to complex investigations, the detention was based on future conduct prognosis, and there was enough material to justify detaining Sajid Ahmed. The Court concluded that all contentions lacked merit, leading to the dismissal of the petitions and discharge of the rule in both cases. en-us Fri, 10 Oct 1997 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 10 Jul 2018 17:51:48 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273697 The Court dismissed the petitions challenging the detention orders, rejecting arguments of paucity of time, unexplained delay, absence of prejudicial acts, and insufficiency of material. It found that the detaining authority had sufficient time to consider the material, the delay was justified due to complex investigations, the detention was based on future conduct prognosis, and there was enough material to justify detaining Sajid Ahmed. The Court concluded that all contentions lacked merit, leading to the dismissal of the petitions and discharge of the rule in both cases. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 10 Oct 1997 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273697