Skip to content
rawlaw unfiltered legal news Raw Law

Unfiltered Legal Insights

  • News
  • Services for Advocates
  • Bookmarks
  • facebook.com
  • twitter.com
  • t.me
  • instagram.com
  • youtube.com

“Specific Justification for Continued Detention is Mandatory”

Home - “Specific Justification for Continued Detention is Mandatory”

Delhi High Court Rejects State’s Plea for Extension of Investigation Time Under Section 43D(2) of UAPA: “Specific Justification for Continued Detention is Mandatory”
Posted inNews

Delhi High Court Rejects State’s Plea for Extension of Investigation Time Under Section 43D(2) of UAPA: “Specific Justification for Continued Detention is Mandatory”

Court’s Decision The Delhi High Court upheld the Trial Court’s rejection of the State's application seeking an extension of the investigation period beyond the statutory 90 days under Section 43D(2)…
Posted by Rawlaw December 17, 2024

Recent News

  • Bombay High Court Dismisses Father’s Habeas Corpus Plea For Return Of Child To UK; Holds “Custody Of The Minor Child With The Mother Is Not Illegal”, Welfare Of Child Remains Paramount
  • Bombay High Court Dismisses Appeal Seeking Release Of Attached Property In NSEL-MPID Case; Holds “MPID Act Has No Provision Regarding Release Of Property In Favour Of The Owner, After An Order Is Passed Permitting Auction”
  • Bombay High Court Refuses Licence For Slot Machines In Five-Star Hotel, Holds “1992 Goa Amendment Act Was Never Brought Into Force” In Daman And Diu; Says “Use Of Electronic Amusement/Slot Machines Remained Prohibited”
  • Bombay High Court Restores Written Statements In Commercial Suit Filed Within Statutory Outer Limit, Holds “Service Of Summons Without Copy Of Plaint And Accompaniments Would Not Constitute Valid Service In Law”
  • Bombay High Court Refuses To Decide ULC Possession Dispute In Writ Jurisdiction, Holds “Serious Disputed Questions Of Facts Arise”; Landowners Given Liberty To File Civil Suit
Copyright 2026 — Raw Law. All rights reserved.
Scroll to Top