<?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>1988 (5) TMI 49 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42724</link>
    <description>Preventive detention is not vitiated merely because there is delay in making or executing the order if the delay is satisfactorily explained and the live link with the prejudicial activity remains intact. The material before the detaining authority must be sufficient to support subjective satisfaction; here, statements of apprehended persons, corroborative witness material, and investigation linking the petitioner to smuggling were held adequate, so there was no non-application of mind. Delay attributable to continued investigation and verification did not invalidate detention, and delayed execution caused by the petitioner&#039;s evasion did not render the order stale or require fresh application of mind.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 09 May 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 12 Jun 2010 18:37:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=81253" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1988 (5) TMI 49 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42724</link>
      <description>Preventive detention is not vitiated merely because there is delay in making or executing the order if the delay is satisfactorily explained and the live link with the prejudicial activity remains intact. The material before the detaining authority must be sufficient to support subjective satisfaction; here, statements of apprehended persons, corroborative witness material, and investigation linking the petitioner to smuggling were held adequate, so there was no non-application of mind. Delay attributable to continued investigation and verification did not invalidate detention, and delayed execution caused by the petitioner&#039;s evasion did not render the order stale or require fresh application of mind.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 09 May 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42724</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>