Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 62 (1.69 seconds)
Documents citing Balu Shivling Dombe vs The Divisional Magistrate, Pandharpur ... on 26 September, 1968

Punjaji Dagdu Gaikwad vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors. on 16 March, 2001

The Apex Court had referred to judgment of this Court in Balu Shivling Domble v. The Divisional Magistrate and held that an excessive order can undoubtedly be struck down because no greater restraint on personal liberty can be permitted than is reasonable in the circumstances of the case. Nevertheless, it was pointed out that the larger area may conceivably have to be comprised within the externment order so as to isolate the externee from his moorings. However, for that purpose data is required. In the case under consideration, there does not appear to be any such data with relation to the five districts from where also the petitioner has been externed along with the area of the activities i.e. district Buldana. Therefore, the impugned order suffers from the vice of excessive externment form the five districts in respect of which no data was placed and the entire externment order is liable to be quashed.
Bombay High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 11 - R K Batta - Full Document

Rajendra Karbhari Kale vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 23 January, 2017

In the case of Balu Vs. The Divisional Magistrate, Pandharpur [cited supra], while appreciating the facts involved in that case, this Court held that extending the area of externment not only outside Pandharpur Taluka but to the Districts of Solapur, Pune and Satara is illegal since the alleged activities against the petitioner therein, as stated in the show cause notice, were confined to the Pandharpur City.
Bombay High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 4 - S S Shinde - Full Document

Taukeeir Ahmed Khan vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 16 September, 2022

16.An excessive order can undoubtedly be struck down because no greater restraint on personal liberty can be permitted than is reasonable in the circumstances of the case. The decision of the Bombay High Court in Balu Shivling Dombe v. Divisional Magistrate, Pandharpur [Balu Shivling Dombe v. Divisional Magistrate, Pandharpur, 1968 SCC OnLine Bom 20] , is an instance in point where an externment order was set aside on the ground that it was far wider than was justified by the exigencies of the case. The activities of the externee therein were confined to the city of Pandharpur and yet the externment order covered an area as extensive as districts of Sholapur, Satara and Poona. These areas are far widely removed from the locality in which the externee had committed but two supposedly illegal acts. The exercise of the power was therefore arbitrary and excessive, the order having been passed without reference to the purpose of the externment."
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 0 - A K Goswami - Full Document

Sumit S/O. Ramkrishna Maraskolhe vs Deputy Commissioner Of Police Zone -1, ... on 5 February, 2018

wp1002.17.odt "16. An excessive order can undoubtedly be struck down because no greater restraint on personal liberty can be permitted than is reasonable in the circumstances of the case. The decision of the Bombay High Court in Balu Shivling Dombe v. The Divisional Magistrate, Pandharpur (supra), is an instance in point where an externment order was set aside on the ground that it was far wider than was justified by the exigencies of the case. The activities of the externee therein were confined to the city of Pandharpur and yet the externment order covered an area as extensive as districts of Sholapur, Satara and Poona. These areas are far widely removed from the locality in which the externee had committed but two supposedly illegal acts. The exercise of the power was therefore arbitrary and excessive, the order having been passed without reference to the purpose of the externment."
Bombay High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 1 - R K Deshpande - Full Document

Yasin Khan Masum Khan Multani vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 22 June, 2018

10. This Court had also occasion to consider the same point involved in this Petition in the case of Balu Vs. The Divisional Magistrate, Pandharpur, reported in 1969 Mh.L.J. 387, while appreciating the facts involved in that case, this Court held that extending the area of externment not only outside Pandharpur Taluka but to the Districts ::: Uploaded on - 22/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 23/06/2018 02:59:05 ::: 448.18WP.odt 16 of Solapur, Pune and Satara is illegal since the alleged activities against the Petitioner therein, as stated in the show cause notice, were confined to the Pandharpur City.
Bombay High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 1 - S S Shinde - Full Document

Deepak Laxman Dongre vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 20 August, 2021

In a case of Balu Shivling Dombe Vs. The Divisional Magistrate, Pandharpur and another (supra), relied upon by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jalna has relied upon two statements. According to those two witnesses, they had no courage to give evidence against the petitioner. On the basis of the statements of those two witnesses, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jalna exterened the petitioner therein with the observations that there will be no peace in the localities where those two witnesses are staying and the maintenance of law ::: Uploaded on - 25/08/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/10/2021 09:51:51 ::: 22 criwp 224.2021.odt and order in these localities will become diffcult. In the backdrop of these facts, the Division Bench of this Court has observed that an order of externment cannot be passed under clause (a) merely on a fnding that the movement or acts of a person are causing or are calculated to cause alarm, danger or harm to one or two individuals in the locality.
Bombay High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 18 - V K Jadhav - Full Document

Pandharinath Shridhar Rangnekar vs Dy. Commr. Of Police, The State Of ... on 11 December, 1972

But Balu Shivling's case furnishes no analogy in the instant matter. A vast city like Bombay presents its own peculiar problems of law and order. It has an ever-growing industrial complex and the city has spread its areas far and wide. A fair proportion of its teeming population is, mobile, with large multitudes streaming in and out of the city in the pursuit of their daily avocations. An order of externment restricted to the particular area chosen by the externee for his unlawful activities and to a small periphery thereof would in such circumstances fail of its true purpose. It would be impossible to secure obedience to such an order and its enforcement would raise practical problems which would impair the efficacy of the order. An order in the instant case if restricted, say, to the areas within the jurisdiction of the Vile Parle police station and its periphery would not serve its purpose. Rather than solving a problem of law and order, it would create yet one more.
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 146 - Y V Chandrachud - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 Next