<?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>2020 (6) TMI 598 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=396223</link>
    <description>Where a detention order relies on remand proceedings, the remand orders are relevant documents if they bear on the stage of investigation, custody extension, and the basis for continued detention. Non-furnishing of those orders to the detenu, despite a request, deprives her of an effective opportunity to make a representation and constitutes a procedural defect. The Madras HC held that this violation of the detenu&#039;s right to representation vitiated the detention order, distinguished the respondent&#039;s relied-on precedent on the ground that the remand order substance had there been placed before the authority, and quashed the detention while allowing the habeas corpus petition.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 27 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 25 Jun 2020 14:41:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=615985" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (6) TMI 598 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=396223</link>
      <description>Where a detention order relies on remand proceedings, the remand orders are relevant documents if they bear on the stage of investigation, custody extension, and the basis for continued detention. Non-furnishing of those orders to the detenu, despite a request, deprives her of an effective opportunity to make a representation and constitutes a procedural defect. The Madras HC held that this violation of the detenu&#039;s right to representation vitiated the detention order, distinguished the respondent&#039;s relied-on precedent on the ground that the remand order substance had there been placed before the authority, and quashed the detention while allowing the habeas corpus petition.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 27 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=396223</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>