Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 148 (1.21 seconds)
Documents citing Mrs. T. Devaki vs Government Of Tamil Nadu And Ors on 7 March, 1990

Dilkule Digambar vs The State Of Ts on 15 June, 2018

15) In view of the three Judge Bench of the Apex Court in T.Devaki (3 supra) and the subsequent judgment of the Apex Court in Aravind Choudary case (2 supra), which was decided basing on the judgment in T.Devaki case (3 supra), we hold that 10 the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that detention order should not have been passed for morethan three months at a stretch cannot be accepted. Hence, we see no merits in the writ petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed.
Telangana High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Pesala Nookaraju vs The Government Of Andhra Pradesh on 16 August, 2023

The High Court relied on the decision in the Commissioner of Police and Another v. Gurbux Anandram Bhiryani reported in (1988) Supp SCC 568, which came to be overruled by a subsequent decision of a larger Bench in T. Devaki (supra). The Bench speaking through one of us, Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud held that since the legislation does not require detaining authority to specify the period for which a detenu is required to be detained the order of detention would not be rendered invalid or illegal in absence of such specification.
Supreme Court of India Cites 83 - Cited by 6 - M M Sundresh - Full Document

C. Sivasubramanian vs State Of Tamil Nadu Reb. By ... on 18 February, 2000

13. Sufficient safeguards had been made by the statute itself for the detenu as discussed by the Apex Court in Devaki v. Govt of Tamil Nadu and others, 1990 SCC Crl.348 . Admittedly, the order of detention does not specify the period of detention and hence, the order of detention cannot be said to have been passed by the detaining authority without application of mind to the relevant and available materials on record, As rightly contended by the learned 'Public Prosecutor, the purpose of sending the communication to the relatives of the detenu is to inform them about the order of detention against the detenu and the place of his confinement so that they can meet the detenu and make necessary arrangements for sending the representation to the authorities. In fact, the communication to the relatives with regard to the order of detention is essential only to the relatives, who were not aware about the order of detention. If the relatives were aware about the order of detention against the detenu, then there is no obligation on the part of the detaining authority to send any communication to the relatives about the order of detention.
Madras High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Kanhaiya Awasthi Thru Next Friend ... vs U.O.I. Thru Secy. Home Affairs New Delhi ... on 16 August, 2021

(emphasis supplied) (22) Considering the aforesaid, particularly the decisions of T. Devaki Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu (Supra) and Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu Public (Law and Order) Revenue Department and others Vs. Kamala and others (Supra) were rendered by three Hon'ble Judges Bench, larger than the Bench which decided the case of Lahu Shrirang Gatkal Vs. State of Maharashtra through the Secretary and others (supra), we are of the considered view that there is no substance in the plea of the detenue/petitioner that the impugned detention order and the impugned order confirming the detention order, both are bad in law as they do not mention the period of detention at the first instance.
Allahabad High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Baban Bhagaji Makale vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 31 August, 2021

In view of the above discussion and in terms of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in various cases, so also by this Court and other High Courts, we are of the considered view that the detaining authority has arrived at subjective satisfaction, applied its mind to the crimes allegedly committed by the petitioner and correctly passed the impugned order of detention. We find no ::: Uploaded on - 02/09/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 02/09/2021 23:43:47 ::: CriWP-301-2021.odt -33- substance in this Writ Petition. Hence, we proceed to pass the following order:
Bombay High Court Cites 48 - Cited by 1 - V K Jadhav - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next