<?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>2002 (5) TMI 64 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46348</link>
    <description>The court dismissed the petition challenging the seizure of money, as investigations revealed fraudulent activities by the main suspect. The petitioner&#039;s ownership claim was rejected due to delayed assertion and lack of evidence, with the court deeming the petition an abuse of legal process and imposing costs on the petitioner.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 15 May 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 17 Jul 2010 12:36:57 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=84874" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (5) TMI 64 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46348</link>
      <description>The court dismissed the petition challenging the seizure of money, as investigations revealed fraudulent activities by the main suspect. The petitioner&#039;s ownership claim was rejected due to delayed assertion and lack of evidence, with the court deeming the petition an abuse of legal process and imposing costs on the petitioner.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 15 May 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46348</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>