Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 18 (0.78 seconds)
Documents citing Suresh Bhojraj Chelani vs State Of Maharashtra on 17 December, 1982

Smt. Ramjot vs Union Of India (Uoi) on 6 October, 1988

It will also be important to mention here that in the case of Suresh Bhojraj Chelani v. State of Maharashtra -1983 (1) Supreme Court Cases 382, an affidavit was filed by the Chairman of the Advisory Board to say that the Customs Officers were allowed to be present in the corridor only so as that they can produce relevant records but no such affidavit has been filed before us by the Chairman or any member of the Advisory Board. On the other hand the affidavit filed by Shri Kishan Singh is clearly at variance with the reply filed to the writ, petition, and it also indirectly shows that the departmental officers did represent the department before the Advisory Board.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ashok Kumar vs Union Of India And Ors. on 9 October, 1987

He referred tea decision of the Supreme Court in Suresh v. State of Maharashtra . In this case, foreign goods such as ladies wrist watches, mini stereo cassette players, watch pens, Casio calculators, recorded tapes and ladies wearing apparels of C.I.F. value of Rs. 43,390 corresponding to market ' value of Rs. 1,13,920 were seized. There were two persons who were detained under sub-s.(1) of S. 3 of the Act and their detention was subsequently confirmed. The order of confirmation passed by the Government did not mention any period of detention and it was urged that as such the order of confirmation of detention had been vitiated. It was a case where S. 9 of the Act did not apply and therefore under S. 10 the maximum period of detention was one year. The court observed as under:- "IT has nowhere been mentioned that the period of one, year or the period lesser than one year shall have to be mentioned in the order of confirmation. The submission of the petitioner on this point has no substance. The maximum period (in this case) is one year. When no period is mentioned in an order, the implication is that the detention is for the maximum period of one year (or two years as the case may be). Detention beyond the maximum period will be illegal."
Delhi High Court Cites 41 - Cited by 0 - D P Wadhwa - Full Document

Bhavna Chandrakant Acharya vs Union Of India And Ors. on 1 August, 1986

In the decision in Suresh Bhojraj Chelani v. State of Maharashtra, reported in AIR 1983 SC 181: (1983 Cri LJ 342) (supra), the Supreme Court had occasion to consider as to whether the order of confirmation passed by the Government without mentioning the period of detention is vitiated or not. The Supreme Court, after coming to the conclusion, which we have extracted in paragraph 9 (supra) said that the language of section 8(f) merely states that on receiving the Advisory Board's opinion as regards sufficiency of cause for the detention, the appropriate Government may confirm the detention order and continue the detention of the person concerned for such period as it thinks fit and it does not support the contention of the counsel to the effect that the order of confirmation passed by the Government should mention the period of detention. Thus, when especially no period need be mentioned in the order confirming detention, the order passed for continued detention must be taken as order passed both for detention and continued detention.
Gujarat High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 2 - S B Majmudar - Full Document

Smt. Bhavna Chandrakant Acharya vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 1 August, 1986

In the decision in Suresh Bhojraj Chelani v. State of Maharashtra, (supra), the Supreme Court had occasion to consider as to whether the order of confirmation passed by the Government without mentioning the period of detention is vitiated or not. The Supreme Court, after coming to the conclusion, which we have extracted in paragraph 9 (supra) said that the language of Section 8(f) merely states that on receiving the Advisory Board's opinion as regards sufficiency of cause for the detention, the appropriate Government may confirm the detention order and continue the detention of the person concerned for such period as it thinks fit and it does not support the contention of the counsel to the effect that the order of confirmation passed by the Government should mention the period of detention. Thus, when especially no period need be mentioned in the order confirming detention, the order passed for continued detention must be taken as order passed both for detention and continued detention.
Gujarat High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 1 - S B Majmudar - Full Document

Mukesh Kumar Gupta And Anr. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 11 January, 2002

The Constitution itself permits the Parliament and the State Legislature to make law providing for Fagu Shaw v. State of W.B. AIR 1974 SC 613; Panua v. State of W.B. AIR 1975 SC 863; Habibullah v. State of W.B. AIR 1974 SC 493; Suresh v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1983 SC 181. detention, without trial, upto a period of three months without any safeguards but where the law seeks to provide for detention for a longer period than three months, it must comply with the constitutional safeguards which are found in sub-clauses (a) and (b) of Clause (4), though leaving it to the discretion of the detaining authority to decide what should be the maximum period of detention. Outside limit to the period of detention has, however, been Lald down by the proviso which says that nothing in sub-Clause (a) of Clause (4) shall authorise the detention of any person beyond the maximum period prescribed by any law made by Parliament under Clause (7).
Allahabad High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 11 - R D Shukla - Full Document

Ramla Haris vs State Of Kerala And Ors. on 15 March, 1996

In Suresh v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1983 SC 181: (1983 Cri LJ 342). Their Lordships took the view that maximum period under Section 10 of the COFEPOSA Act is, (as in this case), one year and when no period is mentioned in an order, the implication is that the detention is for the maximum period of one year. This is so because detention beyond the maximum period will be illegal. In the instant case even though the period was not specified as to whether it was a day, month or year, "one" was mentioned in the order. That "one" must relate to the maximum period of one year, unless it falls under Section 9 of the COFEPOSA Act.
Kerala High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - J B Koshy - Full Document

Tushar S/O Rajansingh Rajput vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 3 April, 2017

In Suresh Bhojraj Chelani v. State of Maharashtra (1983) 1 SCC 382 : (AIR 1983 SC 181), while considering the validity of the detention order made under Section 3 (1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 this Court rejected similar submission made on behalf of the detenu that order of detention was vitiated as the Government had failed to mention the period of detention while confirming the order of detention. The Court held that the COFEPOSA act did not require the detaining authority to mention the period of detention in the order of ::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2017 01:02:00 ::: 1698.2016 Cri.WP.odt 23 detention. When, no period is mentioned in an order, the implication is that the detention is for the maximum period prescribed under the Act.
Bombay High Court Cites 35 - Cited by 0 - S S Shinde - Full Document

Abdul Razak vs The State Of Karnataka on 7 October, 2017

In Suresh Bhojraj Chelani vs. State -: 42 :- of Maharashtra, [1983] 1 SCC 382 (AIR 1983 SC 181), while considering the validity of the detention order made under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 this Court rejected similar submission made on behalf of the detenu that order of detention was vitiated as the Government had failed to mention the period of detention while confirming the order of detention. The Court held that the COFEPOSA Act did not require the detaining authority to mention the period of detention in the order of detention. When no period is mentioned in an order, the implication is that the detention is for the maximum period prescribed under the Act."
Karnataka High Court Cites 57 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next