https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=408825 The court dismissed the petition, ruling that the delay in executing the detention order was due to the petitioner's evasive actions. It was held that there was no break in the connection between the prejudicial activities and the purpose of detention. The court found that the authorities had diligently attempted to carry out the order, and the petitioner could not profit from his own avoidance tactics. en-us Sat, 19 Jun 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 22 Jun 2021 13:26:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=408825 The court dismissed the petition, ruling that the delay in executing the detention order was due to the petitioner's evasive actions. It was held that there was no break in the connection between the prejudicial activities and the purpose of detention. The court found that the authorities had diligently attempted to carry out the order, and the petitioner could not profit from his own avoidance tactics. Case-Laws Customs Sat, 19 Jun 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=408825