Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 295 (0.05 seconds)
Documents citing Rama Dhondu Borade vs V.K. Saraf, Commissioner Of Police & Ors on 5 May, 1989

Urmila Naresh Mittal vs Union Of India And Ors. on 29 October, 1996

In this regard the principle enunciated in R.D. Borade v. V.K. Saraf (supra) decided by a Bench of two Judges has already been discussed in the earlier part of this order, which also lays down the principle that the representation should be expeditiously considered and disposed of with due promptitude and diligence and with the sense of urgency and without avoidable delay and what is the reasonable delay depends on the facts and circumstances of each case.
Gujarat High Court Cites 67 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Siraj Ahmad Alias Pappu vs Union Of India Throu.Secy.Govt.Of ... on 6 November, 2019

13. No doubt, there can be no hard and fast rule in this regard, but unexplained delay in the disposal of the representation would be a breach of the constitutional imperative and would render the continued detention impermissible and illegal See : Jayanarayan Sukul vs. State of W.B., Frances Coralie Mullin Vs. W.C. Khambra, Rama Dhondu Borade vs. V. K. Saraff Commissioner of Police and Aslam Ahmed Zahire Ahmed Shaik v. Union of India.
Allahabad High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M. Asanaliar vs Secretary To Govt., General ... on 7 July, 1999

26. In this case, though the detenu claims to have presented his representation on 8-3-1999 to jail authorities for transmitting the same to the Government, the admitted position is that the Government received the said representation from the jail authorities only on 17-3-1999. In this process, though there is a delay of 8 to 9 days, the reasons for such delay have not been satisfactorily explained. Even the time of 14 days taken for obtaining para-wise remarks from the sponsoring authority by the detaining authority, no satisfactory explanation is offered to this Court in that regard also. Since there is no plausible explanation forthcoming from the respondents for the delay of more than 35 days occasioned in disposing of the representation of the detenu, in the light of the decisions of the Supreme Court Rajammal v. State of Tamil Nadu, Aslam Ahmed Zahire Ahmed Shaik v. Union of India, Rama Dhondu Borade v. V.K. Saraf, Commissioner of Police, (cited supra), we are inclined to hold that the unexplained delay by the respondents would render the impugned order of detention invalid.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next