Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 280 (4.98 seconds)
Documents citing N. Meera Rani vs Government Of Tamil Nadu & Anr on 22 August, 1989

Bhupendra vs Union Of India And 3 Others on 24 October, 2019

In N. Meera Rani v. State of Tamil Nadu the case law was examined in extenso. This Court pointed out that the mere fact that the detenu was in custody was not sufficient to invalidate a detention order and the decision must depend on the facts of each case. Since the law of preventive detention was intended to prevent a detenu from acting in any manner considered prejudicial under the law, ordinarily it need not be resorted to if the detenu is in custody unless the detaining authority has reason to believe that the subsisting custody of the detenu may soon terminate by his being released on bail and having regard to his recent antecedents he is likely to indulge in similar prejudicial activity unless he is prevented from doing so by an appropriate order of preventive detention.
Allahabad High Court Cites 48 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt. Kamini Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 February, 2019

"It is the settled position in law that the authorities are not precluded from passing an order of detention when the person concerned is in jail, but while passing the order of detention, they are required to apply their mind to the fact that the person concerned is already in jail and there are compelling reasons justifying such detention despite the fact that the detenu was already in detention and the compelling reasons implies that there must be cogent material before the Detaining Authority on the basis of which it may be satisfied that the detenu is likely to be released from custody in the near future or taking into account the nature of the antecedent activities of the detenu, it is likely that after his release from custody he would indulge in prejudicial activities and it is necessary to detain him in order to prevent him from engaging -12- W.P. No.25986/2018 in such activities. The aforesaid proposition in law is supported by the judgments of the Supreme Court in the matter of Abdul Razak Abdul Wahab Sheikh v. S.N. Sinha, Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad and Anr., reported in MANU/SC/0007/1989 : (1989) 2 SCC 222; in the matter of N. Meera Rani v. Government of Tamil Nadu and Anr., reported in MANU/SC/0381/1989 : (1989) 4 SCC 418; and in the matter of Dharmendra Suganchand Chelawal v. Union of India and Ors., reported in MANU/SC/0226/1990 : (1990) 1 SCC 746."
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 40 - Cited by 5 - B K Shrivastava - Full Document

Sagar Sunil Gaikwad vs The Commissioner Of Police on 14 March, 2018

(2003)8-SCC-342 Mr.Tripathi urges that a few of these judgments are rendered by three Judge Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court, in all these judgments it has been held that once the detenu has not applied for bail, then, ::: Uploaded on - 21/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2018 01:03:00 ::: 10 914.WP.28.2018.J the order of detention cannot be made lightly and casually. That is a very vital and crucial factor. That crucial factor having been ignored in this case, we must proceed to quash and set aside the detention order. He was at pains to point out that law of precedents would demand that if two three-Judge Bench judgments, firstly in case of N.Meera Rani Vs. Govt. of Tamil Nadu (supra) and in case of Dharmendra S. Chelawat Vs. Union of India and others (supra) have been rendered prior to Veermani Vs. State of Tamil Nadu (supra), and the judgment in Veermani Vs. State of Tamil Nadu does not notice them, then, the judgment in Veermani Vs. State of Tamil Nadu renders itself per incurim.
Bombay High Court Cites 39 - Cited by 1 - S C Dharmadhikari - Full Document

Sokkalingam And Kuila vs The State Of Tamil Nadu By Its The ... on 19 June, 2007

14. ...Subsisting custody of the detenu by itself does not invalidate an order of his preventive detention, and the decision in this regard must depend on the facts of the particular case. Preventive detention being necessary to prevent the detenu from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State or to the maintenance of public order or economic stability etc. ordinarily, it is not needed when the detenu is already in custody. The Detaining Authority must show its awareness to the fact of subsisting custody of the detenu and take that factor into account while making the order. if the Detaining Authority is reasonably satisfied with cogent materials that there is likelihood of his release and in view of his antecedent activities which are proximate in point of time, he must be detained in order to prevent him from indulging in such prejudicial activities, the detention order Page 1316 can be validly made. Where the detention order in respect of a person already in custody does not indicate that the detenu was likely to be released on bail, the order would be vitiated [N. Meera Rani v. Govt of T.N. 1989 (4) SCC 418 : 1989 SCC (Cri) 732; Dharmendra Suganchand Chelawat v. Union of India 1990(1) SCC 746 : 1990 SCC (Cri) 249.
Madras High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - R Banumathi - Full Document

Rizauddin @ Riyajuddin @ Riyajudden @ ... vs Union Of India & Ors. on 6 September, 2024

To the same effect are the decisions of the Supreme Court in Suraj Pal Sahu v. State of Maharashtra and others, (1986) 4 S.C.C. 378; Smt. Shashi Aggarwal v. State of U.P. and Others, (1988) 1 S.C.C. 436; N. Meera Rani v. Government of Tamil Nadu and Another, (1989) 4 S.C.C. 418; and Anand Prakash v. State of U.P. and Others, (1990) 1 S.C.C. 291.
Delhi High Court Cites 46 - Cited by 0 - A Sharma - Full Document

Pabbar Giri @Vijay vs Union Of India And Ors. on 14 November, 2024

To the same effect are the decisions of the Supreme Court in Suraj Pal Sahu v. State of Maharashtra and others, (1986) 4 S.C.C. 378; Smt. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BHASKAR SINGH RAWAT W.P.(CRL) 2114/2024 Page 20 of 27 Signing Date:14.11.2024 17:19:09 Shashi Aggarwal v. State of U.P. and Others, (1988) 1 S.C.C. 436; N. Meera Rani v. Government of Tamil Nadu and Another, (1989) 4 S.C.C. 418; and Anand Prakash v. State of U.P. and Others, (1990) 1 S.C.C. 291.
Delhi High Court Cites 45 - Cited by 0 - A Sharma - Full Document

Smt Afifa Samiya vs Joint Secretary on 12 June, 2018

Following the above principles, another Bench of three Judges of this Court in N.Meera Rani v. Government of T.N.18 (1989) 4 SCC 418, after reviewing the various other decisions, it was observed that: "A review of the above decisions reaffirms the position which was settled by the decision of a Constitution Bench in Rameshwar Shaw case and that "none of 39 WP(HC) No.26/2018 the observations made in any subsequent case can be construed at variance with the principle indicated in Rameshwar Shaw case...." Having so observed the Bench summarised the principle thus: (SCC p.434, para 22) "Subsisting custody of the detenu by itself does not invalidate an order of his preventive detention and the decision must depend on the facts of the particular case;
Karnataka High Court Cites 45 - Cited by 0 - B R B - Full Document

Kumail vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 1 August, 2019

In N. Meera Rani v. State of Tamil Nadu the case law was examined in extenso. This Court pointed out that the mere fact that the detenu was in custody was not sufficient to invalidate a detention order and the decision must depend on the facts of each case. Since the law of preventive detention was intended to prevent a detenu from acting in any manner considered prejudicial under the law, ordinarily it need not be resorted to if the detenu is in custody unless the detaining authority has reason to believe that the subsisting custody of the detenu may soon terminate by his being released on bail and having regard to his recent antecedents he is likely to indulge in similar prejudicial activity unless he is prevented from doing so by an appropriate order of preventive detention.
Allahabad High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next