<?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 (6) TMI 1759 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=470734</link>
    <description>Article 32 may be invoked for immediate protection of personal liberty where custody presents a glaring deprivation of liberty, notwithstanding a remand order and the ordinary expectation that relief first be sought from the High Court. Continued custody for approximately 13 to 14 days was treated as excessive in the stated circumstances. The power to do complete justice supported moulding relief, resulting in an immediate direction to release the petitioner on bail.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 11 Jun 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 06 Aug 2026 13:11:59 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=915740" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (6) TMI 1759 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=470734</link>
      <description>Article 32 may be invoked for immediate protection of personal liberty where custody presents a glaring deprivation of liberty, notwithstanding a remand order and the ordinary expectation that relief first be sought from the High Court. Continued custody for approximately 13 to 14 days was treated as excessive in the stated circumstances. The power to do complete justice supported moulding relief, resulting in an immediate direction to release the petitioner on bail.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 11 Jun 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=470734</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>