Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (0.99 seconds)
Documents citing Akhilesh Kumar Tyagi vs Union Of India And Athers on 18 September, 1995

Shahid Parvez vs Union Of India & Ors. on 27 October, 2010

It is contended by learned counsel for the Petitioner that the original detention for a period of three months is only valid and any detention subsequent thereto is vitiated. On the contrary, the learned ASG submits that even if there is no declaration of continued detention yet detention of a period of one year would not suffice but further detention would be bad. I have heard the learned counsel, it appears to me that the contention raised by Mr. Sood, learned ASG is not borne out from the law laid down by the Supreme Court. I, therefore, hold that the detention for a period of three months is valid and continue detention is vitiated. The writ petition is allowed accordingly."
Delhi High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 2 - S Muralidhar - Full Document

Rajendran vs The Union Of India, Rep By The Secretary, ... on 24 April, 2000

The learned Public Prosecutor submitted from the above, it is clear the Advisory Board is not the competent authority to revoke the order of detention except giving its opinion or the advice as the case may be, and, therefore, it is not obligatory on the part of the detaining authority to apprise the detenu that he has got a right to make his representation to the Advisory Board, It is unnecessary to make a detailed reference to the other decisions, namely, (1) Meena Jayendra Thakur v. Union of India & others, 1999 (8) Supreme 284; (2) N.Narayanan v. The Commissioner of Police, Coimbatore City & others, 1999 (1) L.W. (Crl) 194; (3) Akhilesh Kumar Tyagi v. Union of India, 1996 Crl.L.J. 965 (FB); (4) Keshav Babu Shivhare v. District Jail, Hamirpur, 1996 All.L.J. 1231; (5) State of Punjab v. Sukhpal Sing, (6) A.R.Antulay v. R.S.Nayak, ; (7) A.K.Roy v. Union of India, 1982 SCC (Crl) 152; and (8) Jayanarayan v. State of W.B., , cited by the learned counsel for the detenus, as the subsequent decisions only re-state the principles of law laid down by the Supreme Court in Amir Shad Khan v. L.Hmingliana, ,
Madras High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - V Kanagaraj - Full Document

Meena Jayendra Thakur vs Union Of India & Ors on 22 September, 1999

In support of this contention, Mr. Kotwal, learned senior counsel relies upon the decision of the Full Bench of the Bombay High Court in the case of Sandeep Atmaram Parwal V. The State of Maharashtra in Criminal Writ Petition No. 379 of 1995, disposed of on 31.8.96, since reported in 1996 II LJ 1 as well the decision of Full Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Akhilesh Kumar Tyagi V. Union of India and Others 1996 Crl.L.J.965.
Supreme Court of India Cites 23 - Cited by 31 - Full Document

Cbi vs . 1 Bhushan Grover, on 21 January, 2014

In this regard, he has also relied upon Akhilesh Tyagi Vs. Union of India 2001 (59) DRJ 811. He has also argued that prosecution has to prove its case beyond doubt and merely by showing that prosecution story 'may be true', the prosecution cannot be permitted to say that it had discharged its burden. He has also contended that if at all, accused S.D. Awasthi had agreed to become a co-conspirator, he would have rather done the lien marking himself and would not have permitted any outsider to act as Post Master.
Delhi District Court Cites 34 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Md Parvej Alam vs Union Of India & Ors. on 23 February, 2024

16. Undoubtedly, in the present case there is non-revealing of the factum of a pending criminal case but the legal position seems quite clear and settled. A juvenile is not required to divulge about his previous antecedents. We may also, right here, make reference to Akhilesh Kumar vs. Union of India & Ors.: 2018 SCC online Del 7341. In said case, petitioner had applied for the post of Constable in the Railway Protection Force. As per the selection process, he filled up the requisite form mentioning therein that no criminal case was registered against him. However, when the above form was sent for police verification, it was found that he was involved in a criminal case. It was in the aforesaid background that his appointment was cancelled and he was discharged. Such order was challenged by him and a Coordinate Bench of this Court noted that the petitioner therein was juvenile at the time of the commission of offence and, therefore, he could not be made to suffer any disqualification in view of the provisions of the J.J. Act. The relevant para of the judgment reads as under:-
Delhi High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - S Sachdeva - Full Document

Chiranjivi Pradhan vs Union Of India And Ors on 23 February, 2024

15. Undoubtedly, in the present case there is non-revealing of the factum of a pending criminal case that but the legal position seems quite clear and settled. A juvenile is not required to divulge about his previous antecedents. We may also, right here, make reference to Akhilesh Kumar vs. Union of India & Ors.: 2018 SCC online Del 7341. In said case, petitioner had applied for the post of Constable in the Railway Protection Force. As per the selection process, he filled up the requisite form mentioning therein that no criminal case was registered against him. However, when the above form was sent for police verification, it was found that he was involved in a criminal case. It was in the aforesaid background that his appointment was cancelled and he was discharged. Such order was challenged by him and a Coordinate Bench of this Court noted that the petitioner therein was juvenile at the time of the commission of offence and, therefore, WP (C) No. 9733/2023 Page 7 of 12 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Date:26.02.2024 11:32:26 he could not be made to suffer any disqualification in view of the provisions of the J.J. Act. The relevant para of the judgment reads as under:-
Delhi High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - S Sachdeva - Full Document

Santosh Kumar Yadav @ Ranjan vs Union Of India And Ors. on 27 January, 2025

This Court, while noting that the petitioner therein was a juvenile (17 years 2 months 8 days) at the time of registration of the FIR, in light of the objectives of the JJ Act, 2000 and by relying upon Akhilesh Kumar vs. Union of India Ors., (2018) SCC OnLine Del 7341, which in turn relied upon Mukesh Yadav (supra), held that the petitioner therein was under no legal obligation to have revealed the fact about his previous involvement in a criminal case for an offence which he allegedly committed when he was a minor.
Delhi High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - N Chawla - Full Document

Vipin Sehgal vs Union Of India on 20 December, 1996

Even in the Full Bench Judgment reported as Akhilesh Kumar Tyagi vs. Union of India and Others on which learned counsel for the petitioner relies, though it is stated in para 31 that the above said Division Bench Judgment is correctly decided, there is no discussion as to the meaning of the words above extracted in Section 9(2). In fact, a further question has been left open in the Full Bench Judgment which is set out in para 32 of the Judgment. That question also falls for consideration in this case.
Delhi High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - M J Rao - Full Document
1   2 Next