Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (0.64 seconds)
Documents citing Jitendra @ Tino Babubhai Jayswal vs District Magistrate & 2 on 11 February, 2014

Mubashir Ishrat vs State Of J&K And Ors on 28 August, 2019

13. On the touchstone of the law laid down above, the detenue in the present case could not have been detained after taking recourse to the provisions of the Public Safety Act, when he was already in the custody of the police authorities in the above referred case, therefore, in view of the facts of the case and the law laid down by 8 the Hon'ble Apex Court as quoted hereinabove, the order of detention, impugned, does not sustain on the aforesaid grounds. Other grounds projected in the petition are not required to be dealt with.
Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - R Dar - Full Document

Molvi Mohammad Amin Pala vs Union Territory Of J&K & Ors on 27 April, 2023

11. It is also a fact that time frame within which representation was required to be filed has not been conveyed to the detenue. This too has to be treated a breach of right of the detenue under Section 13 of Public Safety Act and Article 22 of the Constitution of India. Allahabad High Court has rendered the judgment in the case Page |6 'Jitendra Vs. District Magistrate (2004 CriLJ 2967) in this regard and has observed that:
Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Zahid Zameer Mir vs Union Territory Of Jammu & Kashmir ... on 11 December, 2023

11. It is also a fact that time frame within which representation was required to be filed has not been conveyed to the detenue. This too has to be treated as a breach of right of the detenue under Section 13 of Public Safety Act and Article 22 of the Constitution of India. Allahabad High Court has rendered the judgment in the case 'Jitendra Vs. District Magistrate (2004 CriLJ 2967) in this regard and has observed that:
Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mukhtar Ahmad Kumar vs Union Territory Of J&K & Anr on 26 April, 2022

11. It is also a fact that time frame within which representation was required to be filed has not been conveyed to the detenue. This too has to be treated a breach of right of the detenue under Section 13 of Public Safety Act and Article 22 of the Constitution of India. Allahabad High Court has rendered the judgment in the case Page |6 'Jitendra Vs. District Magistrate (2004 CriLJ 2967) in this regard and has observed that:
Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Danish Maqbool Sheikh vs Union Territory Of J&K & Anr on 9 November, 2022

11. It is also a fact that time frame within which representation was required to be filed has not been conveyed to the detenue. This too has to be treated a breach of right of the detenue under Section 13 of Public Safety Act and Article 22 of the Constitution of India. Allahabad High Court has rendered the judgment in the case 'Jitendra Vs. District Magistrate (2004 CriLJ 2967) in this regard and has observed that:
Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Altaf Ahmad Bhat vs Union Territory Of J&K & Anr on 28 March, 2023

10. It is also a fact that time frame within which representation was required to be filed has not been conveyed to the detenue. This too has to be treated a breach of right of the detenue under Section 13 of Public Safety Act and Article 22 of the Constitution of India. Allahabad High Court has rendered the judgment in the case Page |5 'Jitendra Vs. District Magistrate (2004 CriLJ 2967) in this regard and has observed that:
Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Rouf Ahmad Naik vs Union Territory Of J&K & Anr on 17 April, 2023

10. It is also a fact that time frame within which representation was required to be filed has not been conveyed to the detenue. This too has to be treated as a breach of right of the detenue under Section 13 of Public Safety Act and Article 22 of the Constitution of India. Allahabad High Court has rendered the judgment in the case 'Jitendra Vs. District Magistrate (2004 CriLJ 2967) in this regard and has observed that:
Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Fahim Ahmad Check vs Union Territory Of J&K & Anr on 24 July, 2023

10. It is also a fact that time frame within which representation was required to be filed has not been conveyed to the detenue. This too has to be treated a breach of the right of the detenue under Section 13 of Public Safety Act and Article 22 of the Constitution of India. Allahabad High Court has rendered the judgment in the case 'Jitendra Vs. District Magistrate (2004 CriLJ 2967) in this regard and has observed that:
Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next