Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 308 (0.64 seconds)
Documents citing Kundanbhai Dulabhai Shaikh vs Distt. Magistrate, Ahmedabad And Ors on 13 February, 1996

Smt. Sunita Gopal Rajwani vs R.H. Mendonca, Commissioner Of Police ... on 28 June, 1996

A bald statement, without any details thereof, that there was urgent Government work with important and urgent matters, cannot be accepted as a proper explanation in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Kundanbhai Dulabhai Shaikh's case (supra). We may have adopted a different approach where the explanation gives the details of the alleged tours, as also the details of the busy schedule. No such details have been furnished to us though we had repeatedly enquired as to whether this was possible. We must bear in mind the consistent approach of the Supreme Court in such matters where the Court had insisted on the date-wise details of the action taken or the reasons for the inaction.
Bombay High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mrs.I.Padmavathy vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 2 July, 2013

76. Further, the contention of the learned public prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondents that the offences committed by the detenu are serious and grave in nature and therefore, the activities of the detenu had caused prejudice to the maintenance of public order cannot be countenanced. The Supreme Court has stated, in clear terms, in KUNDANBHAI DULABHAI SHAIKH Vs. DISTT. MAGISTRATE, AHMEDABAD AND OTHERS (1996) 3 SCC 194) that the gravity of the offences alleged to have been committed by the detenu cannot be sufficient reason for invading the personal liberty of the detenu, except in accordance with the procedures established by law.
Madras High Court Cites 41 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

S.Deepika vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 2 July, 2013

76. Further, the contention of the learned public prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondents that the offences committed by the detenue are serious and grave in nature and therefore, the activities of the detenue had caused prejudice to the maintenance of public order cannot be countenanced. The Supreme Court has stated, in clear terms, in KUNDANBHAI DULABHAI SHAIKH Vs. DISTT. MAGISTRATE, AHMEDABAD AND OTHERS (1996) 3 SCC 194) that the gravity of the offences alleged to have been committed by the detenue cannot be a sufficient reason for invading the personal liberty of the detenue, except in accordance with the procedures established by law.
Madras High Court Cites 41 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Mohd. Faiyyaz Mansuri Thru. Brother ... vs Union Of India Thru. Secy. Min. Of Home ... on 7 September, 2021

(13) To strengthen his submission, learned Counsel for the detenue/ petitioner has placed reliance upon Rajammal Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and another : (1991) 1 SCC 417, Mohinuddin @ Moin Master Vs. District Magistrate, Beed : AIR 1987 SC 1977, Satyapriya Sonkar Vs. Superintendent, Central Jail : 2000 Cr.L.J. Allahabad (D.B), Kundanbhai Dulabhai Shaikh Vs. Distt.
Allahabad High Court Cites 43 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Mohhammad Sazid vs Superintendent, District Jail, ... on 29 June, 2021

We are reminded of the following observations made by this Court in Kundanbhai Dulabhai Sheikh v. District Magistrate, Ahmedabad [(1996) 3 SCC 194 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 470 : JT (1996) 2 SC 532] : (SCC p. 203, para 21) "21. In spite of law laid down above by this Court repeatedly over the past three decades, the Executive, namely, the State Government and its officers continue to behave in their old, lethargic fashion and like all other files rusting in the Secretariat for various reasons including red-tapism, the representation made by a person deprived of his liberty, continue to be dealt with in the same fashion. The Government and its officers will not give up their habit of maintaining a consistent attitude of lethargy. So also, this Court will not hesitate in quashing the order of detention to restore the ''liberty and freedom' to the person whose detention is allowed to become bad by the Government itself on account of his representation not being disposed of at the earliest."
Allahabad High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Tahir Ahmad Bhat vs Ut Of J&K And Ors on 20 May, 2022

The WP (Crl) 237/2021 Page 6 Supreme Court in the case of Kundanbhai Dulabhai Sheikh vs. District Magistrate Ahmedabad & Ors. 1996 Crl.L.J 1981 quashed the detention order only on the ground of delay in disposing of the representation. Having gone through the observations of the Supreme Court in the aforesaid cases, this court is of the considered view that the said decisions with all fours are applicable to the instant case. Therefore, the detention order is liable to be quashed.
Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Alia Begum vs The State Of Assam And 4 Ors on 5 September, 2022

In another subsequent judgment of this Court in Kundanbhai Dulabhai Shaikh Vs. District Magistrate, Ahmedabad 4, this Court while reiterating the aforesaid principles, found that representation was received by the Central Government on 21-9-1995 and then comments were called for from the State Government and the same were received by the Central Government on 18-10- 1995 and the representation was rejected on 19-10-1995. This Court held in para 22 of the judgment at p. 204 that the internal movement of the file thus took four days and this Court found that this inaction in taking up the representation for six days is unexplained and the mere ground was that there were forty or fifty representations pending for disposal is not a valid justification. This Court found that such delay voids the continued detention of the detenus and the detention order was quashed."
Gauhati High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - R M Chhaya - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next