<?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>2016 (4) TMI 1451 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309440</link>
    <description>The India-Chile extradition arrangement of 26 January 1897 was treated as continuing to bind both States, having devolved on India after Partition and been recognised within the statutory scheme of the Extradition Act, 1962. On the separate question of provisional arrest and extradition, the Court held that reciprocity and general principles of international law could support the request even in the absence of a formal treaty, and that a foreign-State request sent through diplomatic channels was sufficient for provisional arrest. The petitioner&#039;s ultimate extraditability was left to be decided by the Magistrate on the evidence, and the writ petition and criminal appeal were dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 28 Apr 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 02 Sep 2023 21:13:59 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=724973" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (4) TMI 1451 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309440</link>
      <description>The India-Chile extradition arrangement of 26 January 1897 was treated as continuing to bind both States, having devolved on India after Partition and been recognised within the statutory scheme of the Extradition Act, 1962. On the separate question of provisional arrest and extradition, the Court held that reciprocity and general principles of international law could support the request even in the absence of a formal treaty, and that a foreign-State request sent through diplomatic channels was sufficient for provisional arrest. The petitioner&#039;s ultimate extraditability was left to be decided by the Magistrate on the evidence, and the writ petition and criminal appeal were dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 28 Apr 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309440</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>