<?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>1956 (11) TMI 45 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289438</link>
    <description>Article 22(4) permits preventive detention beyond three months only within the limits of clause (7), as adapted for Jammu and Kashmir. Section 14 of the Jammu and Kashmir Preventive Detention Act was treated as an enabling provision that allowed continued detention without reference to an Advisory Board in the specified circumstances, and it did not require a formal order. The Government had decided within the relevant period to proceed under section 14 after consultation, and there was no statutory duty to communicate that decision to the detenue. On that basis, non-communication did not invalidate the detention, and the challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 13 Nov 1956 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 30 Jul 2020 17:33:39 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=618742" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1956 (11) TMI 45 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289438</link>
      <description>Article 22(4) permits preventive detention beyond three months only within the limits of clause (7), as adapted for Jammu and Kashmir. Section 14 of the Jammu and Kashmir Preventive Detention Act was treated as an enabling provision that allowed continued detention without reference to an Advisory Board in the specified circumstances, and it did not require a formal order. The Government had decided within the relevant period to proceed under section 14 after consultation, and there was no statutory duty to communicate that decision to the detenue. On that basis, non-communication did not invalidate the detention, and the challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 13 Nov 1956 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289438</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>