Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (5.07 seconds)
Documents citing Subramanian And Anr. vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 12 November, 1974

Leema Rose vs The District Magistrate And on 29 March, 2012

63. The learned Public Prosecutor based reliance on the decision rendered in Crl.A.No.417 of 2012 in the case of Subramanian vs. State of Tamil Nadu and another. In that case, the detenu was branded as a Goonda and detained under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The Apex Court while considering the question whether the action of the detenu is only a law and order problem or a public order problem , the Apex Court considered the nature of the activities indulged in by the detenu and has pointed out the distinction between law and order or public order. In the said decision, in paragraphs 12 and 13, it has been held as follows:-
Madras High Court Cites 38 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

M. Pari vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 18 June, 2013

14. On consideration of the principles and ratio laid down by the Supreme Court and this Court in various decisions and considering the facts discussed above, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned order of detention passed against the detenu is on stale ground and with total non application of mind and, hence, it cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the impugned detention order passed by the 2nd respondent, detaining the detenu, namely Haribabu, S/o. Govindaraj, made in C.M.P. No: 6/GOONDA/C2/2013 dated 14.04.2013, is quashed and the habeas corpus petition is allowed. The above named detenu is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case. The Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
Madras High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mrs.Badrunissa vs The Tamil Nadu State on 26 June, 2003

17]; Subramanian v. State of Tamil Nadu [1999 (2) MWN (Crl.) 244] and two unreported judgments of two other Division Benches of this Court in H.C.P.No.1444 of 1999 and H.C.P.No.213 of 2000. It has been held in those cases that all relevant materials should be placed before the detaining authority by the sponsoring authority; that even post-detention documents, if they are relevant, should be placed before the Advisory Board.
Madras High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - R J Babu - Full Document

Dineshbhai Amthabhai Rabari vs State Of Gujarat & 2 on 16 January, 2014

7. So far as case-law rendered in case of Subramanian (Supra) cited by the learned learned AGP Mr. Bhatt for the State is concerned, it appears that in the said case, there was material found from the grounds of detention and because of the threat by the detenu and his associates by showing weapons, the nearby shopkeepers closed their shops out of fear and also auto drivers left their stand and thus left the place. Accordingly, the activity of the detenu and his associates was not termed as only law and order problem but it affect the public order as assessed by the detaining authority. In the case on hand, though there might be material on record before the detaining authority to suggest that the petitioner was involved in running a brothel and thus involved in supplying of women, the question is whether that by itself can be stated to be the activity of breach of public order. In Court's opinion such offence is though posed problem of law and order as concept of public order is much different and thus the petitioner's activity would not affect the Page 5 of 8 C/SCA/17773/2013 JUDGMENT maintenance of public order as there is nothing on record to show that there was a feeling of insecurity among the general public. Thus, the commission of offences in question do not come within the purview of public order and therefore, case- law cited by the learned AGP Mr.Bhatt is not applicable to the facts of the present case.
Gujarat High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - S H Vora - Full Document

Pradip Alias Pintu Khimjibhai Vaghela vs State Of Gujarat & 2 on 10 February, 2014

Learned AGP has relied upon the decision rendered in the case of Subramanian v. State of Tamil Nadu and Another reported in 2012 (4) SCC 699, and more particularly observations recorded in Paragraph 17 thereof. The Hon'ble Apex Court found on facts there that the scene created by the detenue and his associates cannot be termed as only law and order problem but its a public order as assessed by the detaining authority who is supposed to safeguard and protect the interest of public. In the case on hand, the detaining authority has recorded statement of two witnesses without mentioning specific place at which the offences of harassing woman were committed, further said secret witnesses were beaten and threatened. If the statement of two secret witnesses are discarded then, there is nothing on record except solitary incident against the petitioner and therefore, such registration of offence by itself cannot be considered so as to brand the petitioner habitual offender as defined under Section 2(c) of the Act.
Gujarat High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - S H Vora - Full Document

Mariappan vs The District Collector And District ... on 18 August, 2014

76.In Subramanian vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others, reported in 2012 (4) SCC 699, in a two Judges Bench judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court explained as to whether the Court can substitute its opinion for that of the detaining authority. The High Court observed that the bail application in respect of ground case was pending before the Sessions Judge, Tiruchirappalli. The detaining authority came to the conclusion that the detenu was likely to be released on bail and if he comes out on bail, he would indulge in future activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The order of detention was upheld. While the detenu preferred an appeal, after considering the facts of the case, and the pendency of the bail application, at paragraphs 14 and 20 held as follows:-
Madras High Court Cites 86 - Cited by 6 - S Manikumar - Full Document
1   2 Next