<?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>2022 (3) TMI 1587 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312906</link>
    <description>Commercial quantity recovery under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 attracted the statutory embargo on bail under Section 37. Bail could be granted only if the petitioner satisfied the strict statutory conditions for overcoming that restriction, but no such showing was made. Bail was therefore refused because the Section 37 bar remained unaddressed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 22 Mar 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 13 Mar 2024 17:53:54 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=746829" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (3) TMI 1587 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312906</link>
      <description>Commercial quantity recovery under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 attracted the statutory embargo on bail under Section 37. Bail could be granted only if the petitioner satisfied the strict statutory conditions for overcoming that restriction, but no such showing was made. Bail was therefore refused because the Section 37 bar remained unaddressed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 22 Mar 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312906</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>