Search Results Page

Search Results

81 - 90 of 93 (7.20 seconds)
Documents citing Jayendrasingh Anirudhsingh Jadeja vs Gujarat State Machine Tools ... on 7 April, 2000

Naveed Hussain Khan Rasheed Hussain ... vs The State Of Maharashtra on 21 July, 2025

719. Learned Sr. Counsel Nitya Ramakrishnan further stated that the only provision similar to S.23(1)(a) of MCOCA in Indian law, was S.20A(1) of TADA. The Supreme Court has held that prior approval under S.20A(1) of TADA, must be given only after proper application of mind, which involves checking the veracity of allegations by enquiring into the records relating to the same. In the absence of such verification, the prior approval is neither proper nor valid, and proceedings are vitiated. A reliance has been placed for this purpose on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anirudhsinhji Karansinhji Jadeja v. State of Gujarat reported in (1995) 5 SCC 302 and Ashrafkhan v. State of Gujarat reported in (2012) 11 SCC 606.
Bombay High Court Cites 235 - Cited by 0 - A S Kilor - Full Document

Ehtesham Qutubuddin Siddique vs The State Of Maharashtra on 21 July, 2025

719. Learned Sr. Counsel Nitya Ramakrishnan further stated that the only provision similar to S.23(1)(a) of MCOCA in Indian law, was S.20A(1) of TADA. The Supreme Court has held that prior approval under S.20A(1) of TADA, must be given only after proper application of mind, which involves checking the veracity of allegations by enquiring into the records relating to the same. In the absence of such verification, the prior approval is neither proper nor valid, and proceedings are vitiated. A reliance has been placed for this purpose on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anirudhsinhji Karansinhji Jadeja v. State of Gujarat reported in (1995) 5 SCC 302 and Ashrafkhan v. State of Gujarat reported in (2012) 11 SCC 606.
Bombay High Court Cites 235 - Cited by 0 - A S Kilor - Full Document

Mohammad Sajid Margub Ansari vs The State Of Maharashtra on 21 July, 2025

719. Learned Sr. Counsel Nitya Ramakrishnan further stated that the only provision similar to S.23(1)(a) of MCOCA in Indian law, was S.20A(1) of TADA. The Supreme Court has held that prior approval under S.20A(1) of TADA, must be given only after proper application of mind, which involves checking the veracity of allegations by enquiring into the records relating to the same. In the absence of such verification, the prior approval is neither proper nor valid, and proceedings are vitiated. A reliance has been placed for this purpose on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anirudhsinhji Karansinhji Jadeja v. State of Gujarat reported in (1995) 5 SCC 302 and Ashrafkhan v. State of Gujarat reported in (2012) 11 SCC 606.
Bombay High Court Cites 235 - Cited by 0 - A S Kilor - Full Document

Tanveer Ahmed Mohd. Ibrahim Ansari vs The State Of Maharashtra on 21 July, 2025

719. Learned Sr. Counsel Nitya Ramakrishnan further stated that the only provision similar to S.23(1)(a) of MCOCA in Indian law, was S.20A(1) of TADA. The Supreme Court has held that prior approval under S.20A(1) of TADA, must be given only after proper application of mind, which involves checking the veracity of allegations by enquiring into the records relating to the same. In the absence of such verification, the prior approval is neither proper nor valid, and proceedings are vitiated. A reliance has been placed for this purpose on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anirudhsinhji Karansinhji Jadeja v. State of Gujarat reported in (1995) 5 SCC 302 and Ashrafkhan v. State of Gujarat reported in (2012) 11 SCC 606.
Bombay High Court Cites 235 - Cited by 0 - A S Kilor - Full Document

Shaikh Mohd. Ali Alam Shaikh vs The State Of Maharashtra on 21 July, 2025

719. Learned Sr. Counsel Nitya Ramakrishnan further stated that the only provision similar to S.23(1)(a) of MCOCA in Indian law, was S.20A(1) of TADA. The Supreme Court has held that prior approval under S.20A(1) of TADA, must be given only after proper application of mind, which involves checking the veracity of allegations by enquiring into the records relating to the same. In the absence of such verification, the prior approval is neither proper nor valid, and proceedings are vitiated. A reliance has been placed for this purpose on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anirudhsinhji Karansinhji Jadeja v. State of Gujarat reported in (1995) 5 SCC 302 and Ashrafkhan v. State of Gujarat reported in (2012) 11 SCC 606.
Bombay High Court Cites 235 - Cited by 0 - A S Kilor - Full Document

Bhavesh Arvindbhai Patel vs State Of Gujarat on 16 July, 2002

9. Under the circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anirudhsinh Jadeja (supra) will have no application to the facts of this case, more particularly when the accused is charged with serious offences like Sections 153A, 295, 198 and 427 I. P. Code and Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act. If it was a simple case of mischief then perhaps this Court would have taken liberal view of the matter, but the alleged act of the petitioner accused was gruesome. Such acts spoiled the communal harmony prevailing between the communities. The situation would have been worsen if the other side reacted in the matter. These type of incidents are responsible for communal riots spread out in the State at a large scale which continued for months together. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that discretion should not be exercised in favour of such person. Court can consider the case of the accused who has assaulted the individual, but not of those accused who have indulged in this type of heinous act of bomb blasting on a pious religious place like mosque.
Gujarat High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

L.T. Overseas Limited vs Food Corporation Of India And Anr. on 3 April, 2006

12. Still further, I am of the opinion that the principle laid down in Anirudhsinhji Karansinhji Jadeja's case (supra) and Election Commission of India's case (supra), cannot be extended to the present case as the said cases were a direction to the statutory authority to exercise the discretion in a particular manner. However, in the present case, the Corporation has not exercised any statutory jurisdiction while deciding to invoke the bank guarantee. More so, the decision to invoke the bank guarantee was already communicated but it was on a representation moved by the petitioner to the Ministry which made the Corporation to wait for one week. Therefore, the judgments referred by the petitioner are of no assistance to the petitioner.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 1 - H Gupta - Full Document
Previous   5 6 7 8 9   10 Next