https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=395556 A challenge to a detention order under COFEPOSA could be amended to include a challenge to the consequential Section 7(1)(b) notification, because the notification was directly linked to the unexecuted detention order and was not wholly alien to the writ petition. The Court treated the amendment stage as requiring only a prima facie assessment, particularly where personal liberty was at stake, and declined to refuse amendment on objections based on maintainability, delay, or the petitioner's conduct. The petitioner was also permitted to plead malice in law, with the merits of that contention left open for later determination. The amendment was allowed and pleadings were directed to be completed expeditiously. en-us Tue, 26 May 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 28 May 2020 10:55:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=395556 A challenge to a detention order under COFEPOSA could be amended to include a challenge to the consequential Section 7(1)(b) notification, because the notification was directly linked to the unexecuted detention order and was not wholly alien to the writ petition. The Court treated the amendment stage as requiring only a prima facie assessment, particularly where personal liberty was at stake, and declined to refuse amendment on objections based on maintainability, delay, or the petitioner's conduct. The petitioner was also permitted to plead malice in law, with the merits of that contention left open for later determination. The amendment was allowed and pleadings were directed to be completed expeditiously. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 26 May 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=395556