<?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>1975 (1) TMI 98 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277761</link>
    <description>Preventive detention was vitiated where the detaining authority relied on undisclosed material, including a history sheet and prior criminal antecedents, in forming subjective satisfaction, because Article 22(5) requires that the detenu be furnished with all material actually influencing detention. Withholding those additional grounds deprived the detenu of an effective opportunity to make a representation. The detention order was therefore unsustainable and immediate release followed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 15 Jan 1975 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 21 Dec 2018 14:24:17 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=548322" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1975 (1) TMI 98 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277761</link>
      <description>Preventive detention was vitiated where the detaining authority relied on undisclosed material, including a history sheet and prior criminal antecedents, in forming subjective satisfaction, because Article 22(5) requires that the detenu be furnished with all material actually influencing detention. Withholding those additional grounds deprived the detenu of an effective opportunity to make a representation. The detention order was therefore unsustainable and immediate release followed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 15 Jan 1975 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277761</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>