https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288733 Preventive detention under COFEPOSA was upheld despite challenges based on delayed service of the Section 9(1) declaration, alleged territorial nexus defects, custody status, and non-placement of the full remand order. The Court noted that Section 9(1) fixes only the outer limit for making the declaration, not a statutory time-limit for communication, and no prejudice to representation was shown. It further treated the reference to Indian coastal waters as a typographical error, found sufficient material connecting the activities to Maharashtra, and held that detention in judicial custody was valid where the authority was aware of custody and had material suggesting likely release and continued prejudicial activity. en-us Wed, 14 Oct 1992 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 25 Jun 2020 16:44:23 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288733 Preventive detention under COFEPOSA was upheld despite challenges based on delayed service of the Section 9(1) declaration, alleged territorial nexus defects, custody status, and non-placement of the full remand order. The Court noted that Section 9(1) fixes only the outer limit for making the declaration, not a statutory time-limit for communication, and no prejudice to representation was shown. It further treated the reference to Indian coastal waters as a typographical error, found sufficient material connecting the activities to Maharashtra, and held that detention in judicial custody was valid where the authority was aware of custody and had material suggesting likely release and continued prejudicial activity. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 14 Oct 1992 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288733