Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (1.00 seconds)
Documents citing Vijaya Kumar Gujral vs Union Of India And Others on 27 May, 1987

Mariamma vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 13 August, 1993

Our view is also in consonance with the view of the Delhi High Court in Mohd. Saleem v. Union of India and in Vijaya Kumar v. Union of India, 1988 Crl LJ. 1198 (Delhi) and Subash Chandran v. Union of India, 1990 Crl LJ (NOC) 54 (Delhi), and with the decisions of the Madras High Court in K. Natarajan v. State of T.N. , 1991 Crl LJ 756 (Mad) and of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Nutan J. Patel v. S.V. Prasad, 1993 Crl LJ 989 (AP).
Kerala High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - M J Rao - Full Document

Satnam Singh vs Union Of India And Ors. on 24 August, 1987

(11) The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent is that in a case where an order of detention is passed by an Additional Secretary in the Ministry of Finance, then the Joint Secretary duly constituted as the Central Government, shall be well within his right to dispose of the detenu's representation against the order of detention or the continued detention. This very defense was the subject matter of controversy in a case bearing Cr. Writ No. 65 of 1986, entitled Vijay Kumar Gujral vs. Union of India and others decided by S. Ranganathan, and H.C.Goel JJ. of this Court on 27th May, 1987. In this case, the order of declaration under Section 9(1) of the Act was passed by Shri M.L. Wadhawan, Addl. Secretary to the Government of India. The representation of the detenu against his continued detention was also disposed of by the same authority. This argument of the counsel for the detenu was that in this way, the detenu's right of making the representation to different authorities has been taken away. The Bench, on consideration of the relevant provisions held as under : "IN view what, of has been said above we hold that the representation of the petitioner under Section 11(1) insofar as challenge to the petitioner's continuance of detention in pursuance of the declaration under Section 9(1) on ground that the declaration under Section 9(1) ought not to have been dealt with and disposed of by Shri Wadhawan himself, ought to have been placed before an officer of the Central Government either superior to him or before an officer of equal rank viz. that of an Addl. Secretary other than Shri Wadhawan and the disposal of the said representation of the petitioner by Shri Wadhawan himself was not valid and proper disposal of the representation of the petitioner. The continuance of the petitioner's detention as a consequence of the declaration, therefore, is liable to be quashed on this ground alone."
Delhi High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Subhash Chander vs Union Of India And Ors. on 31 January, 1989

(26) In Vijaya Kumar Gujral v. Union of India and others, 1988 Criminal Law Journal p. 1198,(5) a Division Bench of this court has also held that the representation of the detenu cannot be considered by the same officer who made the order even though he may apart from empowerment under section 3 be also empowered to act as the Central Government under section 11 of the Cofeposa under the Business Rules of the Government. This, in fact. is the ratio arrived at in the aforesaid case, though for reasons different than those we are relying upon. In our view, due compliance with the mandate of Article 22(5) warrants that even if the representation is considered by an officer functioning as Central Government by virtue of delegation of powers under the Business Rules he must be. higher in rank and in any case other than the one who made the order of detention as an office specially empowered under section 3(1) of the COFEPOSA.
Delhi High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Randhir Singh S/O Bahadur Singh Gupta vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 28 December, 1990

1. The Order in this petition shall also govern the disposal of Miscellaneous Petitions Nos. 1585 of 1982, V. S. Thakur v. Union of India and Ors., 1669 of 1982, V. S. Gupta v. Union of India and Ors., 1671 of 1982, Vijaya Singh v. Union of India and Ors., 108 of 1983, R. P. Agarwal v. Union of India and Ors., 244 of 1983, Balchandra v. Union of India and Ors. and 1267 of 1983, V. K. Agarwal and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors..
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

P.H. Abdul Kareem vs Union Of India And Ors. on 1 July, 1994

(16) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner invited my attention to a Division Bench Judgment of this Court Vijaya Kumar Gujral Vs Union of India and others 1988 Crl.1,.11.1198 In this matter this Court had occasion to deal with case to ill most similar nature. In the said case, when an original order of detention is passed by an officer of the Central Govt. and the representation under Section 11(i) by the detenue, is also disposed of by the same officer acting in the Central Govt., the detenue shall be deprived of his right on making one of the two representations, i.e., the right to make representation under section 11(i) shall be lost to him. Thus, it appears to us that in such a case the representation under section 11(i)(b) must necessarily be there and dealt with and disposed of by an officer of the Central Govt. or in any case, an officer of the same rank duly empowered in that behalf other than the officer who made the declaration."
Delhi High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 4 - D Bhandari - Full Document
1   2 Next