<?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>1989 (9) TMI 394 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200865</link>
    <description>A preventive detention order was held unsustainable where the detaining authority relied on irrelevant material with no discernible nexus to any prejudicial activity attributed to the detenu. Because the subjective satisfaction was based on extraneous material rather than pertinent and proximate facts, the authority was found to have failed to apply its mind to the actual grounds of detention. The detention order was therefore vitiated and quashed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 26 Sep 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 28 Apr 2018 13:05:10 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=518380" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1989 (9) TMI 394 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200865</link>
      <description>A preventive detention order was held unsustainable where the detaining authority relied on irrelevant material with no discernible nexus to any prejudicial activity attributed to the detenu. Because the subjective satisfaction was based on extraneous material rather than pertinent and proximate facts, the authority was found to have failed to apply its mind to the actual grounds of detention. The detention order was therefore vitiated and quashed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 26 Sep 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200865</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>