<?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>1964 (4) TMI 143 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288711</link>
    <description>The appeal was allowed, setting aside the High Court&#039;s order and directing that the documents seized under Section 19(3) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act can be retained by the Director of Enforcement until the final conclusion of proceedings under Section 23. The Court emphasized that the Magistrate lacks jurisdiction over the seized articles and cannot extend their retention beyond the statutory period specified in Section 19-A.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 14 Apr 1964 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 01 Jul 2020 11:47:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=615891" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1964 (4) TMI 143 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288711</link>
      <description>The appeal was allowed, setting aside the High Court&#039;s order and directing that the documents seized under Section 19(3) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act can be retained by the Director of Enforcement until the final conclusion of proceedings under Section 23. The Court emphasized that the Magistrate lacks jurisdiction over the seized articles and cannot extend their retention beyond the statutory period specified in Section 19-A.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 14 Apr 1964 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288711</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>