9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (8) TMI 926X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... against the appellant till date. The detention order was in respect of the activities indulged in or said to have been indulged in by the appellant as far back as in 2002 - continuing the order of detention today is an exercise in futility and the same should not, therefore, be given effect to any further - appeal allowed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r of detention could not be executed against the appellant and in July 2006, the appellant challenged the same before the Delhi High Court and while the matter was pending, the appellant and the other detenu approached the Settlement Commission appointed under the Customs Act, 1962 on 13-7-2007 and, ultimately, the matter was settled by an order passed by the Settlement Commission on 11-9-2007. 3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re - arrest stage and it was not open to the appellant to challenge the detention order on the grounds raised till such time as it was served or executed on the appellant. Aggrieved by the said order the appellant has moved the present appeal. There is no dispute that despite the fact that the order of detention was passed as far back as on 19-3-2002, the same could not be or has not been execute ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
