<?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>2013 (11) TMI 1738 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279393</link>
    <description>Non-consideration of a document invalidates preventive detention only if the document was truly relevant and its omission caused prejudice. The bail order here contained only routine conditions, and the show cause notice merely repeated material already in the sponsoring file, so their non-consideration did not vitiate the detention order. The Advisory Board did not act illegally in receiving the show cause notice, and no substantiated request to adduce evidence was shown to have been refused, so no procedural prejudice was established. Delay in passing and executing the detention order was explained by scrutiny of a voluminous proposal and by efforts to trace the detenu, so the live link was not broken and the detention was not rendered illegal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 06 Nov 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 15 Mar 2019 12:47:03 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=562963" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (11) TMI 1738 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279393</link>
      <description>Non-consideration of a document invalidates preventive detention only if the document was truly relevant and its omission caused prejudice. The bail order here contained only routine conditions, and the show cause notice merely repeated material already in the sponsoring file, so their non-consideration did not vitiate the detention order. The Advisory Board did not act illegally in receiving the show cause notice, and no substantiated request to adduce evidence was shown to have been refused, so no procedural prejudice was established. Delay in passing and executing the detention order was explained by scrutiny of a voluminous proposal and by efforts to trace the detenu, so the live link was not broken and the detention was not rendered illegal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>FEMA</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 06 Nov 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279393</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>