Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 37 (1.09 seconds)
Documents citing Smt. Asha Keshavrao Bhosale vs Union Of India & Anr on 4 October, 1985

Anil Kumar Agarwal vs State Of Uttar Pradesh And Anr. on 11 March, 1991

In Smt. Asha Keshaorav Bhoshle v. Union of India, AIR 1986 SC 283 : (1986 Cri LJ 177) similar question arose, in this case two representations were made, one by the Secretary Khed Taluka Martha Sewa Sangh and the other by the petitioner and on considering the contents thereof the Sangh's representation was disposed of which was the first one and, therefore, the disposal of the second representation which was made by the petitioner on the same score held that the delay in disposing of that representation did not really prejudice the detenu's case. In this case even though the petitioner made second representation the Supreme Court held the first representation to be valid and did not reject the said representation on the ground of Article 22(5) of the Constitution that it is only the petitioner's representation to be considered.
Allahabad High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 7 - A P Misra - Full Document

Asha Ram vs . Uoi on 21 August, 2007

Asha Ram Vs. UOI present case is of the same date and there is no reason as to why the said rates be not awarded to the petitioners. No contrary evidence has been led by the respondent on record. There is nothing on record to show that the land of the petitioner is inferior than the land involved in Ex.P1. Accordingly, I am of the view that petitioners are entitled to the compensation @ Rs.28,000/- per bigha. Since the LAC has awarded the rate @ Rs.11000/- per bigha, petitioners are entitled to enhanced rate to the extent of Rs.17000/- per bigha. Both the issues are decided accordingly.
Delhi District Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State Of Punjab vs Sukhpal Singh on 6 October, 1989

In Asha Keshavrao Bhosale v. Union of India & Anr., [1985] 4 SCC 361, it was found that a representation was made by the petitioner on behalf of the detenu which was received in the office of the Chief Minis- ter on November 28, 1984 and orders on that representation were passed on January 23, 1985 and the same orders were received on January 28, 1985. In the representation made by the petitioner himself to the Chief Minister, the order of detention was casually impugned but lot of attention appears to have been bestowed on the necessity of keeping the detenu in a Bombay Jail instead of sending him to Nasik Road Prison as directed in the Order of detention. A detailed represen- tation was made by the Secretary of an association which espoused his cause and that representation was received on November 29, 1984 in the Secretariat of the Chief Minister and was forwarded to the Home Department on December 3,. 1984 and was finally disposed of on December 12, 1984 and the rejection thereof was communicated on December 13, 1984. This Court held that the petitioner was not entitled to make tenable submission on the score of delay in disposal of the representation.
Supreme Court of India Cites 53 - Cited by 87 - K N Saikia - Full Document

Sebina vs State Of Kerala And Anr. on 2 July, 1993

Again in Asha v. Union of India, referred to above, there was a representation by the detenu before the Board for being assisted by a 'friend' and the refusal by the Board to grant permission on the ground that the detenu had not brought his friend along with him before the Board on that date, was held to be valid. These two cases, in our opinion, deal with the two alternatives that could be adopted by the Advisory Board when the detenu does not bring the 'friend along with him.
Kerala High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - M J Rao - Full Document

Ved Prakash Tiwari vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 30 March, 2022

In view of the aforesaid finding, the decisions relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioners in A.P. State Electricity Board (supra), V.M. Joseph's case (supra), Renu Mullick (Smt.) (supra), Dwijen Chandra Sakrar (supra), Vinod Kumar Sharma (supra) and V.N. Bhat's case (supra) are clearly inapplicable and / or distinguishable on the facts of the present case.
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - S Agrawal - Full Document

Chhabilal Divya vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 30 March, 2022

In view of the aforesaid finding, the decisions relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioners in A.P. State Electricity Board (supra), V.M. Joseph's case (supra), Renu Mullick (Smt.) (supra), Dwijen Chandra Sakrar (supra), Vinod Kumar Sharma (supra) and V.N. Bhat's case (supra) are clearly inapplicable and / or distinguishable on the facts of the present case.
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - S Agrawal - Full Document

Ajay Kumar Sinha vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 30 March, 2022

In view of the aforesaid finding, the decisions relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioners in A.P. State Electricity Board (supra), V.M. Joseph's case (supra), Renu Mullick (Smt.) (supra), Dwijen Chandra Sakrar (supra), Vinod Kumar Sharma (supra) and V.N. Bhat's case (supra) are clearly inapplicable and / or distinguishable on the facts of the present case.
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - S Agrawal - Full Document

Santosh Kumar Sharma vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 30 March, 2022

In view of the aforesaid finding, the decisions relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioners in A.P. State Electricity Board (supra), V.M. Joseph's case (supra), Renu Mullick (Smt.) (supra), Dwijen Chandra Sakrar (supra), Vinod Kumar Sharma (supra) and V.N. Bhat's case (supra) are clearly inapplicable and / or distinguishable on the facts of the present case.
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - S Agrawal - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next