<?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>2008 (1) TMI 411 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48391</link>
    <description>&#039;Arrest&#039; under Section 46 of the Code of Criminal Procedure means actual touching or confinement of the body, or submission to custody by word or action, while &#039;custody&#039; in the bail context under Section 439 includes physical control or appearance before the court with submission to its jurisdiction. A person who appears before the Magistrate and seeks bail may therefore be treated as in judicial custody even without prior formal police arrest. On disclosure, the text notes that the candidates&#039; understanding of the recruitment form was given the benefit of doubt, and denial of appointment was not sustained for the successful appellants.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 08 Jan 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 09 Jun 2014 08:54:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=86890" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (1) TMI 411 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48391</link>
      <description>&#039;Arrest&#039; under Section 46 of the Code of Criminal Procedure means actual touching or confinement of the body, or submission to custody by word or action, while &#039;custody&#039; in the bail context under Section 439 includes physical control or appearance before the court with submission to its jurisdiction. A person who appears before the Magistrate and seeks bail may therefore be treated as in judicial custody even without prior formal police arrest. On disclosure, the text notes that the candidates&#039; understanding of the recruitment form was given the benefit of doubt, and denial of appointment was not sustained for the successful appellants.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 08 Jan 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48391</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>