Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 86 (0.94 seconds)
Documents citing K.K. Saravana Babu vs State Of Tamil Nadu & Anr on 22 August, 2008

Ravichandran vs ) The State Of Tamil Nadu on 1 August, 2014

The said decision is reiterated in (2008) 9 SCC 89 (K.K.Saravana Babu v. State of Tamil Nadu) (27) In R.L.Ashokan vs. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in 2011 (6) CTC 655, the occurrence was in the office of the complainant. On the aspect as to whether it was prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, a Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, after considering the reasons stated in the grounds of detention that the said acts, caused disruption to public peace and public order, at paragraphs 13 to 15 held as follows:-
Madras High Court Cites 62 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M.Shagunthala Devi vs The Secretary To Government on 18 August, 2013

The said decision is reiterated in (2008) 9 SCC 89 (K.K.Saravana Babu v. State of Tamil Nadu) (27) In R.L.Ashokan vs. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in 2011 (6) CTC 655, the occurrence was in the office of the complainant. On the aspect as to whether it was prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, a Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, after considering the reasons stated in the grounds of detention that the said acts, caused disruption to public peace and public order, at paragraphs 13 to 15 held as follows:-
Madras High Court Cites 68 - Cited by 0 - S Manikumar - Full Document

M.Shagunthala Devi vs The Secretary To Government on 18 August, 2014

The said decision is reiterated in (2008) 9 SCC 89 (K.K.Saravana Babu v. State of Tamil Nadu) (27) In R.L.Ashokan vs. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in 2011 (6) CTC 655, the occurrence was in the office of the complainant. On the aspect as to whether it was prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, a Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, after considering the reasons stated in the grounds of detention that the said acts, caused disruption to public peace and public order, at paragraphs 13 to 15 held as follows:-
Madras High Court Cites 68 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

P.Ramasamy 25/14 vs The Secretary To Government on 18 August, 2013

The said decision is reiterated in (2008) 9 SCC 89 (K.K.Saravana Babu v. State of Tamil Nadu) (27) In R.L.Ashokan vs. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in 2011 (6) CTC 655, the occurrence was in the office of the complainant. On the aspect as to whether it was prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, a Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, after considering the reasons stated in the grounds of detention that the said acts, caused disruption to public peace and public order, at paragraphs 13 to 15 held as follows:-
Madras High Court Cites 70 - Cited by 0 - S Manikumar - Full Document

N.Indirani vs The Secretary To Government on 18 August, 2013

The said decision is reiterated in (2008) 9 SCC 89 (K.K.Saravana Babu v. State of Tamil Nadu) (27) In R.L.Ashokan vs. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in 2011 (6) CTC 655, the occurrence was in the office of the complainant. On the aspect as to whether it was prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, a Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, after considering the reasons stated in the grounds of detention that the said acts, caused disruption to public peace and public order, at paragraphs 13 to 15 held as follows:-
Madras High Court Cites 72 - Cited by 0 - S Manikumar - Full Document

P.Ramasamy 25/14 vs The Secretary To Government on 18 August, 2013

The said decision is reiterated in (2008) 9 SCC 89 (K.K.Saravana Babu v. State of Tamil Nadu) (27) In R.L.Ashokan vs. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in 2011 (6) CTC 655, the occurrence was in the office of the complainant. On the aspect as to whether it was prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, a Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, after considering the reasons stated in the grounds of detention that the said acts, caused disruption to public peace and public order, at paragraphs 13 to 15 held as follows:-
Madras High Court Cites 70 - Cited by 0 - S Manikumar - Full Document

Abhayraj Gupta vs Superintendent,Central Jail on 23 December, 2021

15. Sri Syed Ali Murtaza has placed reliance on judgments rendered in Baby Devassy Chully alias Bobby Vs. Union of India and others, (2013) 4 SCC 531, Arun Ghosh Vs. West Bengal, 1970 SC 1228, Alijan Miya Vs. District Magistrate, 1983 SC 1130 and K.K. Saravana Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2008) 9 SCC 89 and Kamarunnissa Vs. Union of India and another, AIR 1991 SC 1640.
Allahabad High Court Cites 84 - Cited by 3 - M C Tripathi - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next