Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 19 (4.13 seconds)
Documents citing Chhagan Chandrakant Bhujbal vs Union Of India And Ors on 14 December, 2016

Rajbhushan Omprakash Dixit vs Union Of India & Anr on 19 February, 2018

39. The decisions of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Karam Singh v. Union of India (supra), of the Bombay High Court in Chhagan Chandrakant Bhujbal v. Union of India (supra) and of the Jharkhand High Court in Hari Narain Mishra v. Union of India 2010 SCC Online Jha 475 are no longer good law in view of the categorical subsequent pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Ashok Munilal Jain (supra).
Delhi High Court Cites 66 - Cited by 9 - S Muralidhar - Full Document

Anandrao Vithoba Adsul vs Enforcement Directorate Government Of ... on 14 October, 2021

It is also contended that the Delhi High Court, in the decision of Rajbhushan Omprakash, has observed that the decision of this Court in the case of Chhagan Chandrakant Bhujbal v. Union of India 5 is not good law. The Petitioner contends that the Supreme Court, in the case of Ashok Jain, has laid down a proposition that the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure as long as they are not inconsistent with 3 (2018) 16 SCC 158 4 (2018) SCC Online Delhi 7281 5 2016 SCC Online Bom 9938 skn 7 903-WP-3418.2021.doc the provisions of the PMLA will stand incorporated. This submission is further elaborated to contend that there is nothing in the PMLA that states that the copy of the ECIR is a secret document, and the same is akin to the FIR under the Code of Criminal Procedure which is a public document and must be shared.
Bombay High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 3 - S V Kotwal - Full Document

Vijay Madanlal Choudhary vs Union Of India on 27 July, 2022

231 (1997) 3 SCC 721 232Karam Singh (supra at Footnote No.224) and Chhagan Chandrakant Bhujbal (supra at Footnote No.225) 233 Supra at Footnote No.227 234 2016 SCC OnLine Hyd 64 142 (li) It is submitted that the nature of the amendment can only be inferred from the scheme of the Act prior to the amendment and subsequent to the amendment, and it is the substance rather than the form which determines the nature of the Act.
Supreme Court of India Cites 580 - Cited by 293 - A M Khanwilkar - Full Document

Rakesh Manekchand Kothari vs Union Of India on 9 August, 2023

5.21 The reliance placed on the decision in the case of Chhagan Chandrakant Bhujbal (Supra) by the learned Counsel for the respondent authority applies with full force from all corners on all the issues agitated by the petitioner, having answered against the petitioner in the said decision. 5.22 Once it is held that the initial arrest and detention in the judicial custody by a judicial order, which has become final and Page 69 of 80 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 00:51:06 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/4247/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 09/08/2023 undefined not challenged in any proceedings, cannot be said to be illegal, this successive writ of habeas corpus cannot be entertained further. All those other issues can be agitated by the petitioner for the purpose of either bail or discharge or ultimate acquittal in the trial.
Gujarat High Court Cites 109 - Cited by 0 - U A Trivedi - Full Document

Roop Bansal vs Union Of India And Another on 31 October, 2023

26. To arrive at this conclusion, the Hon'ble Apex Court noted that the mode of conveying information of the grounds of arrest must necessarily be meaningful so as to serve the intended purpose. Reference was made to Section 45 of the PMLA which enables the arrested person to seek release on bail. It was noticed that Section 45 prescribes twin conditions which are required to be satisfied in the absence of which, the arrested person would not be entitled to bail. The Hon'ble Apex Court held that to meet the requirement of Section 45 of the PMLA, it would be essential for the arrested person to be aware of the grounds of arrest and the basis for the officer's 'reason to believe' that the arrested person was guilty of offence punishable under the PMLA. Only if the arrested person has knowledge of these facts that he/she would be in a position to plead and prove before the 55 of 60 ::: Downloaded on - 01-11-2023 01:56:25 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:138899-DB CWP-23005-2023 56 Special Court that there are grounds to believe that he/she is not guilty of such offence, so as to avail the relief of bail. It was held that the communication of the grounds of arrest, as mandated by Article 22 (1) of the Constitution and Section 19 of the PMLA, is, therefore, meant to serve this higher purpose and must be given due importance. The Hon'ble Apex Court also held that the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Moin Akhtar Qureshi Versus Union of India and others 2017 SCC Online Del 12108; WP (Crl.) No.2465 of 2017, decided on 01.12.2017 and that of the Bombay High Court in the case of Chhagan Chandrakant Bhujbal vs. Union of India and others 2017 (1) AIR Bom R (Cri) 929 which took a contrary view do not lay down the correct law.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 87 - Cited by 0 - A Palli - Full Document

Virbhadra Singh & Anr vs Enforcement Directorate & Anr on 3 July, 2017

127. As in the cases of Karam Singh (supra) and Chhagan Chandrakant Bhujbal (supra), brought before the Punjab & Haryana High Court and Bombay High Court respectively, substantial focus of arguments of the petitioners here was to bring home that the general procedural law, as contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, and the authoritative pronouncements of the Supreme Court and various High Courts prescribe safeguards against the misuse of authority by the agencies investigating crimes, particularly in the context of possibility of abuse vis-a-vis the power of arrest and interrogation having a bearing on the fundamental rights of freedom and rule against self-incrimination. It was submitted that the procedure must be regulated according to the classification under which the PMLA offences would fall, the investigation being impermissible in absence of registration of an FIR if the nature of the crimes is taken as cognizable, such conclusion obliging the investigating agency to abide by the requirements of Chapter XII of Cr. P.C. Conversely, it was urged that if the offences are non-cognizable, the investigating agency WP(C) 856/2016 & connected matters Page 86 of 101 must take prior approval from the court (the Magistrate) before commencing the probe or exercising the power of arrest.
Delhi High Court Cites 188 - Cited by 13 - R K Gauba - Full Document

Rohit Tandon vs The Enforcement Directorate on 10 November, 2017

(iv) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus declaring that the offences under the Prevention of Money   Laundering   Act,   2002   (Act   15   of   2003) pursuant   to   the   Prevention   of   Money   Laundering (Amendment) Act, 2005 (Act 20 of 2005) which came into   force   w.e.f.   01.07.2005   are   non­cognizable offences   and   therefore,   it   is   mandatory   to   comply with the provisions of Sections 155, 177(1) and 172 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and declare that the law laid down by the Division Bench of the Hon’ble   Delhi   High   Court   in   its   judgment   dated 27.4.2016 (reported in 2016 SCC Online Delhi 2493) and by the  Hon’ble Gujarat  High Court  in Rakesh Manekchand   Kothari   vs.   Union   of   India   [Special Criminal   Application   (Habeas   Corpus)   No. 4247/2015] decided on 03.08.2015 holding that the offences under Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laudnering   Act,   2002   punishable   under   Section   4 thereof is a non­cognizable offence is good law and the   contrary   view   taken   by   the   Hon’ble   Bombay High   Court   in   its   judgment   dated   14.12.2016   in Chhagan Chandrakant Bhujbal vs. Union of India & Ors. is bad in law;
Supreme Court of India Cites 52 - Cited by 128 - A M Khanwilkar - Full Document

Moin Akhtar Qureshi vs Uoi & Ors. on 1 December, 2017

68. The decision of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Chhagan Chandrakant Bhujbal (supra) and that of the learned Single Judge of the same Court in Sunil Chainani (supra) appeal to us and we find ourselves in complete agreement with the reasoning adopted by the learned Judges in those decisions. The expression "communicate to such person the grounds on which the order has been made ... ... ..." used in Article 22(5) has to be interpreted in the context of the purpose for which the said obligation is cast on the State. The communication of the grounds of preventive detention is to afford to the detenue the earliest opportunity of making an effective representation against the order of detention. Unlike in the case of an arrest referable to Article 22(1), when a person is preventively detained under Article 22(5), there is no obligation on the State to produce the detenue before the nearest Magistrate within 24 hours of detention. The law does not mandate the obtainment of the sanction of the Magistrate, or any other judicial authority for continued detention of the detenue beyond the period of 24 hours. The only immediate right available to the detenue is to make a representation against his preventive detention. To be able to effectively exercise that right, it is imperative that the detenue is communicated the grounds on which the order of detention has been made in writing, in a language that he understands, so that he is able to make his W.P.(CRL) 2465/2017 Page 55 of 71 representation effectively.
Delhi High Court Cites 84 - Cited by 13 - V Sanghi - Full Document

Shareholders Association Of Financial ... vs The Union Of India And 2 Ors on 4 December, 2017

20] Mr. Mookherjee and Mr. Dwarkadas submit that mere public interest is not sufficient and the Central Government must be satisfied that it is essential in national interest to compulsorily amalgamate two or more companies in order to exercise the draconian powers under Section 396. They submit that the national interest is different and distinct from mere public interest and since, the Central Government, in making the impugned order, has not even adverted to the aspect of national interest, the impugned order, is vitiated and liable to be struck down. They rely mainly on the legislative history, the statement of objects and reasons to the Bill which preceded the Constitution (Fourth Amendment) Act, 1955 and the Companies (Amendment) Bill 1959. They also make reference to Notes on Clauses mainly to submit that amendment to substitute the expression national interest with public interest in Section 396, was an amendment of merely "drafting nature". They rely on Uttam Das vs. Shiromani Gurdwara Prabhandak Committee, Amritsar20, Chagan Bhujbal vs. Union of India21, Wood Polymer Limited vs. Bengal Hotels Pvt. Ltd.22 and Union of India vs. Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd.23, in support of their submissions.
Bombay High Court Cites 118 - Cited by 0 - M S Sonak - Full Document
1   2 Next