<?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>1968 (3) TMI 123 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310071</link>
    <description>Preventive detention grounds must be specific, existing and legally relevant so that the detenu can make an effective representation. A ground is vulnerable where it is vague, omits essential particulars, or lacks support in the material on record, and a ground that names a non-existent purchaser cannot sustain detention if the alleged factual basis was never communicated. Where a vital ground is defective, the detaining authority&#039;s subjective satisfaction cannot be preserved by relying only on the remaining grounds, because the Court cannot assume the same decision would have been reached without the defective material. The detention order was therefore treated as invalid for breach of constitutional safeguards.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 27 Mar 1968 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 05 Oct 2023 11:11:01 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=728125" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1968 (3) TMI 123 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310071</link>
      <description>Preventive detention grounds must be specific, existing and legally relevant so that the detenu can make an effective representation. A ground is vulnerable where it is vague, omits essential particulars, or lacks support in the material on record, and a ground that names a non-existent purchaser cannot sustain detention if the alleged factual basis was never communicated. Where a vital ground is defective, the detaining authority&#039;s subjective satisfaction cannot be preserved by relying only on the remaining grounds, because the Court cannot assume the same decision would have been reached without the defective material. The detention order was therefore treated as invalid for breach of constitutional safeguards.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 27 Mar 1968 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310071</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>