<?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>1974 (2) TMI 95 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289665</link>
    <description>Preventive detention based on the District Magistrate&#039;s subjective satisfaction was upheld because the supplied grounds were sufficiently particularised and not vague or illusory. The material showed nocturnal transport of rice, false cash memos and licence particulars, and verification that the alleged buyers had not made the claimed purchases, which provided an adequate basis for detention. The Court also held that prejudice to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community was not to be read narrowly in the context of food distribution and control, and that describing the ground as cumulative, rather than alternative, did not invalidate the order. The challenge failed and the detention was sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 13 Feb 1974 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 13 Aug 2020 10:45:17 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=619622" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1974 (2) TMI 95 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289665</link>
      <description>Preventive detention based on the District Magistrate&#039;s subjective satisfaction was upheld because the supplied grounds were sufficiently particularised and not vague or illusory. The material showed nocturnal transport of rice, false cash memos and licence particulars, and verification that the alleged buyers had not made the claimed purchases, which provided an adequate basis for detention. The Court also held that prejudice to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community was not to be read narrowly in the context of food distribution and control, and that describing the ground as cumulative, rather than alternative, did not invalidate the order. The challenge failed and the detention was sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 13 Feb 1974 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289665</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>