<?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 (8) TMI 340 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=384151</link>
    <description>A pre-execution challenge to a COFEPOSA detention order requires scrutiny of whether authorities acted with reasonable promptitude in serving the order and whether any delay broke the live link between the detention grounds and execution. On the facts described, prompt forwarding, service attempts, surveillance, raids, substituted service on the detenu&#039;s mother, and publication after evasion were treated as sufficient to negate delay attributable to the authorities. The material also indicated reliance on 2017-2018 incidents, not stale past matters, and the record did not support non-consideration of relevant material. Allegations of personal mala fides were not examined without impleading the concerned official.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 05 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 07 Aug 2019 09:20:01 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=582717" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (8) TMI 340 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=384151</link>
      <description>A pre-execution challenge to a COFEPOSA detention order requires scrutiny of whether authorities acted with reasonable promptitude in serving the order and whether any delay broke the live link between the detention grounds and execution. On the facts described, prompt forwarding, service attempts, surveillance, raids, substituted service on the detenu&#039;s mother, and publication after evasion were treated as sufficient to negate delay attributable to the authorities. The material also indicated reliance on 2017-2018 incidents, not stale past matters, and the record did not support non-consideration of relevant material. Allegations of personal mala fides were not examined without impleading the concerned official.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 05 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=384151</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>