<?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>2019 (5) TMI 2009 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313963</link>
    <description>The HC permitted the petitioner to travel to the UK for five weeks, subject to conditions such as depositing a Fixed Deposit Receipt and providing a surety bond. The petition challenging the LOC was disposed of, with contentions reserved. The Registrar General was tasked with managing the security deposit and surety bond, to be released upon the petitioner&#039;s return and compliance with the conditions. The Court found no urgency in restricting the petitioner as he was not an accused, and no charge sheet had been filed. The LOC&#039;s purpose to prevent evasion was deemed unfulfilled as the petitioner had not evaded investigation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 29 May 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 May 2024 06:55:04 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=752611" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (5) TMI 2009 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313963</link>
      <description>The HC permitted the petitioner to travel to the UK for five weeks, subject to conditions such as depositing a Fixed Deposit Receipt and providing a surety bond. The petition challenging the LOC was disposed of, with contentions reserved. The Registrar General was tasked with managing the security deposit and surety bond, to be released upon the petitioner&#039;s return and compliance with the conditions. The Court found no urgency in restricting the petitioner as he was not an accused, and no charge sheet had been filed. The LOC&#039;s purpose to prevent evasion was deemed unfulfilled as the petitioner had not evaded investigation.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 29 May 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313963</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>