<?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>1965 (2) TMI 103 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175705</link>
    <description>Preventive detention under the Defence of India Act and the Defence of India Rules was valid only if made by the State Government or by an officer not below the rank of District Magistrate. An Additional District Magistrate, even if invested with the powers of a District Magistrate under the Code of Criminal Procedure or other law, did not become a District Magistrate unless formally appointed as such under the Code. Temporary charge of district administration and administrative instructions were insufficient to satisfy the statutory requirement. The detention order was therefore invalid because it was made by an officer below the rank required by the statute.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 02 Feb 1965 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 03 Dec 2015 12:24:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=407453" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1965 (2) TMI 103 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175705</link>
      <description>Preventive detention under the Defence of India Act and the Defence of India Rules was valid only if made by the State Government or by an officer not below the rank of District Magistrate. An Additional District Magistrate, even if invested with the powers of a District Magistrate under the Code of Criminal Procedure or other law, did not become a District Magistrate unless formally appointed as such under the Code. Temporary charge of district administration and administrative instructions were insufficient to satisfy the statutory requirement. The detention order was therefore invalid because it was made by an officer below the rank required by the statute.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 02 Feb 1965 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175705</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>