Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 155 (2.80 seconds)
Documents citing The State Of Punjab vs Ajaib Singh And Another on 10 November, 1952

Homi D. Mistry vs Shree Nafisul Hussan on 16 November, 1956

40. Now it is abundantly clear that under Article 141 of the Constitution any law declared by the Supreme Court, shall be binding on all Courts within the territories of India. The question is whether there is any declaration of law to be found in this order. There is only a statement of admitted facts and the sequitur that on these admitted facts Article 22(2) must be applied. But, altogether apart from that there is a decision of the Supreme Court itself reported in The State of Punjab v. Ajaib Singh [1953] S.C.R. 254. and in that judgment the learned Judges have had reason to refer to this petition. Before discussing that case, it is necessary to set out certain points. The first is that the Speaker is not the authority that issued the warrant. The warrant was issued by the High Court of Parliament namely the House of the Legislative Assembly and the signature to the warrant was appended by the Speaker entirely in his administrative capacity. I am entirely of the opinion that the manner in which the facts were admitted indicated that the warrant was looked at as if it was, issued by the executive and not by a judicial authority. The warrant exh. K is signed by the Speaker in pursuance of the 'Resolution of the House, and therefore in my opinion clearly the authority issuing the warrant was the House and not the Speaker. It is perfectly true and rightly pointed out by Mr. Palkhivala that the body of the petition does indicate the allegation that it was in pursuance of certain contempt proceedings that the warrant was issued, but, those statements were not made the basis of the judgment, but certain admitted facts as regards the period of detention and non-production before a Magistrate within twenty-four hours. Therefore if the Order which amounts to a judgment is to be binding it would be binding, as I have pointed out above, under Article 141 as laying down the law.
Bombay High Court Cites 92 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Hanuman Singh vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors. on 14 August, 1996

The fact that in view of Supreme Court's decision in State of Punjab v. Ajaib Singh, AIR 1953 SC 10 : (1953 Cri LJ 180), persons arrested under a warrant issued by the Magistrate are not entitled to fundamental right given by Article 22 Clause (2) of the Constitution, clearly show that the responsibility of the Magistrate issuing process under Section 204 of the Criminal Procedure Code cannot be overestimated. He must act judicially in the matter, Keeping in view the fact that his act of proceeding against citizen may deprive citizen of his personal liberty.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 70 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Regional Provident Fund Commissioner vs Rabindra Chandra Chamaria And Ors. on 14 March, 1990

22. Before we consider the scope and effect of Section 633 we shall keep in mind the well-known principles of construction of statutes with particular reference to the welfare legislations. Generally speaking if the language of the statute is clear and unambiguous and admits of only one meaning, then the duty of the court is to adopt that meaning irrespective of the inconvenience that such construction may produce. If, however, two constructions are possible then the court must adopt that which will ensure smooth and harmonious working of the provision and give a go-bye to that interpretation which will lead to absurdity or give rise to public inconvenience or make well established principles of law nugatory. However it is to be kept in mind that the object of every enactment is public welfare. Reference may be made in this connection to State of Punjab v. Ajaib Singh (supra) and In re: Bajaj Industries (supra).
Calcutta High Court Cites 109 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Govind Prasad vs The State Of West Bengal on 24 March, 1975

Mr. Prasun Chandra Ghosh, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the accused-petitioner, however, referred to the case of State of Punjab v. Ajaib Singh and relied on the observations made by Mr. Justice S. R. Das at p. 15 that "There can be no manner of doubt that arrests without warrants issued by a Court call for greater protection than do arrests under such warrants. The provision that the arrested persons should within 24 hours be produced before the nearest Magistrate is particularly desirable in the case of arrest otherwise than under a warrant issued by the Court, for it ensures the immediate application of a judicial mind to the legal authority of the person making the arrest and the regularity of the procedure adopted by him." We respectfully agree with the same. Mr. Ghosh next referred to the fact that earlier, in the case instituted by Sri Paul Oswal, Director of the company, against the present accused-petitioner, substantially on the same facts, when a warrant of arrest was issued by the Ludhiana Court, the then Chief Presidency Magistrate of Calcutta, by his order dated the 25th April, 1973, had granted bail to the accused in that case, directing him to appear before the Ludhiana Court in due course. The Rule obtained from the High Court for a cancellation of the bail so granted by the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta, was ultimately discharged by Mr. Justice A, K. Basu and Mr. Justice N. C. Mukherjee on the 14th June, 1973. Mr. Prasun Chandra Ghosh accordingly submitted that this is a precedent pat on the point in support of his submissions.
Calcutta High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru ... vs State Of Kerala And Anr on 24 April, 1973

558. Since the respondents themselves claim powers of such wide magnitude that the results which have been briefly mentioned can flow apart from others which shall presently notice, the consequences and effect of suggested construction have to be taken into account as has been frequently done by this Court. Where two constructions are possible the court must adopt that which will ensure smooth and harmonious working of the Constitution and eschew the other which will lead to absurdity or give rise to practical inconvenience or make well-established provisions of existing law nugatory State of Punjab v. Ajaib Singh and Anr. [1953] S.C.R. 254 at page 264; Director of Customs, Baroda v. Dig Vijay Singhji Spining & Weaving Mills Ltd. [1962] 1 S.C.R. p. 896.
Supreme Court of India Cites 573 - Cited by 999 - Full Document

State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Shobharam And Ors on 22 April, 1966

As soon as the respondents were arrested without warrants issued by a Court, they acquired the rights guaranteed by cl. (1) of Art. 22. It is true that they were subsequently released on bail and at the time of the trial before the Nyaya Panchayat they were not being detained. But the right attaching to them on their arrest continued though they were not under detention at the time of the trial. The right was not lost because they were released on bail. The respondents were arrested otherwise than under a warrant issued by a Court on the accusation that they had committed crimes. Their arrests, therefore, satisfy the test laid down in Ajaib Singh's case(1), and are within the purview of cl. (1) of Art. 22. We express no opinion on the question whether the test of an arrest laid down in that case is exhaustive.
Supreme Court of India Cites 30 - Cited by 30 - Full Document

S.C.Shukla (Now Dead) Smt Sushil Kumari ... vs State Of U.P. Thr Secy. Appointment Lko & ... on 4 July, 2017

27- The language of Article 22 (1) and (2) indicates that the fundamental right conferred by it gives protection against such arrests as are effected otherwise than under a warrant issued by a Court on the allegation or accusation that the arrested person has, or is suspected to have committed, or is about or likely to commit an act of a criminal or quasi-criminal nature or some activity prejudicial to the public or the State interest. In other words, there is indication in the language of Article 22 (1) and (2) that it was designed to give protection against the act of the executive or other non-judicial authority. The physical restraint put upon an abducted person in the process of recovering and taking that person into custody without any allegation or accusation of any actual or suspected or apprehended commission by that person of any offence of a criminal or quasi-criminal nature or of any act prejudicial to the State or the public interest and delivery of that person to the custody of the Officer-in-charge of the nearest camp under Section. 4 of the impugned Act, cannot be regarded as arrest and detention within the meaning of Article 22 (1) and (2). (Vide State of Punjab Vs. Ajaib Singh, AIR 1953 SC 10).
Allahabad High Court Cites 67 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

S.C.Shukla (Now Dead) Smt Sushil Kumari ... vs State Of U.P. Thr Secy. Appointment Lko & ... on 4 July, 2017

27- The language of Article 22 (1) and (2) indicates that the fundamental right conferred by it gives protection against such arrests as are effected otherwise than under a warrant issued by a Court on the allegation or accusation that the arrested person has, or is suspected to have committed, or is about or likely to commit an act of a criminal or quasi-criminal nature or some activity prejudicial to the public or the State interest. In other words, there is indication in the language of Article 22 (1) and (2) that it was designed to give protection against the act of the executive or other non-judicial authority. The physical restraint put upon an abducted person in the process of recovering and taking that person into custody without any allegation or accusation of any actual or suspected or apprehended commission by that person of any offence of a criminal or quasi-criminal nature or of any act prejudicial to the State or the public interest and delivery of that person to the custody of the Officer-in-charge of the nearest camp under Section. 4 of the impugned Act, cannot be regarded as arrest and detention within the meaning of Article 22 (1) and (2). (Vide State of Punjab Vs. Ajaib Singh, AIR 1953 SC 10).
Allahabad High Court Cites 66 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next