<?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>2019 (3) TMI 1411 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=377390</link>
    <description>The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the High Court&#039;s order and directing the writ petitioners to surrender before the Special Court, Gurugram. The Court held that the ex post facto extension granted by the Competent Authority was valid, emphasizing that the investigation mandate did not end with the specified period. It ruled that the arrest of the applicants was not illegal due to vested rights and subsequent extension validating the arrests. The Court clarified that challenges to remand orders should be pursued through appropriate legal channels, not habeas corpus petitions. The High Court of Delhi had jurisdiction but erred in entertaining the petitions.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 27 Mar 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 05 May 2023 12:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=564549" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (3) TMI 1411 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=377390</link>
      <description>The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the High Court&#039;s order and directing the writ petitioners to surrender before the Special Court, Gurugram. The Court held that the ex post facto extension granted by the Competent Authority was valid, emphasizing that the investigation mandate did not end with the specified period. It ruled that the arrest of the applicants was not illegal due to vested rights and subsequent extension validating the arrests. The Court clarified that challenges to remand orders should be pursued through appropriate legal channels, not habeas corpus petitions. The High Court of Delhi had jurisdiction but erred in entertaining the petitions.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 27 Mar 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=377390</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>