<?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>1992 (11) TMI 294 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299889</link>
    <description>Preventive detention is sustained where the detaining authority has relevant material for subjective satisfaction that the person&#039;s conduct prejudicially affects public order. Strict rules of evidence do not apply, so statements and other material not admissible in a criminal trial may still be relied on. On the facts, the court found adequate material showing violent incidents, intimidation and terror in a public locality, and held that these affected public order rather than a mere law and order issue. The claimed procedural objections, including advance notice of next-friend assistance, unexplained delay, and lack of sufficient material, were rejected, and the detention was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 26 Nov 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 03 Jan 2022 16:31:22 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=666072" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1992 (11) TMI 294 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299889</link>
      <description>Preventive detention is sustained where the detaining authority has relevant material for subjective satisfaction that the person&#039;s conduct prejudicially affects public order. Strict rules of evidence do not apply, so statements and other material not admissible in a criminal trial may still be relied on. On the facts, the court found adequate material showing violent incidents, intimidation and terror in a public locality, and held that these affected public order rather than a mere law and order issue. The claimed procedural objections, including advance notice of next-friend assistance, unexplained delay, and lack of sufficient material, were rejected, and the detention was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 26 Nov 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299889</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>