Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.87 seconds)
Nishant Arora @ Noni vs Lieutenant Governor Of Delhi, Gnctd & ... on 13 May, 2024 cites

Jugal Kishore vs Lt.Governor, Delhi & Anr. on 3 May, 2017

5. It is contended that Respondents have misread and misconstrued provisions of Section 47 of the DP Act and wrongly interpreted the word 'habitually' mentioned in Section 47(c)(ii), (iii) and (iv) of DP Act, which takes colour from the Explanation to the provision. It is provided in the Explanation that a person, who during one year immediately preceding the commencement of an action under this Section, has been found on not less than three occasions to have committed or to have been involved in any of the acts referred to in this section shall be deemed to have habitually committed that act. In the present case, six FIRs were lodged against the Petitioner in the years 2012, 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2023 respectively and he is not involved in 3 cases in one year preceding commencement of action under Section 47 and cannot be termed as 'habitual' as defined under the Explanation to the Section. Reliance is placed on the judgments of this Court in Shammy v. Lt. Governor and Others, (2005) 117 DLT 629 and Jugal Kishore v. Lt. Governor, Delhi, (2017) 2 JCC 1335.
Delhi High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 1 - A Kumar - Full Document

Ram Niwas vs Commissioner Of Police And Ors. on 20 December, 2002

It is submitted that in Ram Niwas v. Commissioner of Police and Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:KAMAL KUMAR W.P.(CRL) 1432/2024 Page 3 of 16 Signing Date:22.05.2024 19:41:55 Others, (2003) 103 DLT 146, this Court set aside the externment order finding, on judicial scrutiny, that in none of the cases pending against the Petitioner witnesses had expressed their apprehension that they were unable to appear and depose because of fear of the Petitioner. It was also observed that the order of externment has very serious repercussions on the Petitioner and his family and a stringent test must be applied to avoid easy possibility of abuse of this power to the detriment of fundamental freedoms of persons externed.
Delhi High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 1 - D Bhandari - Full Document

Mohd. Aslam vs Delhi Administration And Others on 3 October, 1985

7. It is argued that both the impugned orders indicate that no reasons have been given for passing the orders and in the absence of a reasoned order the right granted to the Petitioner is illusory. It is a settled law that reasons form the backbone of any order and without reasons neither the person against whom the order is passed nor the Court examining the order in a judicial review would be in a position to ascertain the grounds that weighed with the authority to pass an order. Reliance is placed on the decision in Mohd. Aslam v. Delhi Administration & Ors., 1986 (29) DLT 437, in this context.
Delhi High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Shammy vs Lt. Governor And Ors. on 17 February, 2005

5. It is contended that Respondents have misread and misconstrued provisions of Section 47 of the DP Act and wrongly interpreted the word 'habitually' mentioned in Section 47(c)(ii), (iii) and (iv) of DP Act, which takes colour from the Explanation to the provision. It is provided in the Explanation that a person, who during one year immediately preceding the commencement of an action under this Section, has been found on not less than three occasions to have committed or to have been involved in any of the acts referred to in this section shall be deemed to have habitually committed that act. In the present case, six FIRs were lodged against the Petitioner in the years 2012, 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2023 respectively and he is not involved in 3 cases in one year preceding commencement of action under Section 47 and cannot be termed as 'habitual' as defined under the Explanation to the Section. Reliance is placed on the judgments of this Court in Shammy v. Lt. Governor and Others, (2005) 117 DLT 629 and Jugal Kishore v. Lt. Governor, Delhi, (2017) 2 JCC 1335.
Delhi High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 1 - R C Jain - Full Document

Khalid @ Aminuddin @ Pahalwan vs Addl. Dy. Commissioner Of Police And ... on 7 December, 2004

18. Examining the externment order on the anvil of Section 47 and within the confines of Section 52 of DP Act and keeping in mind the judgments of the Supreme Court on the scope and ambit of interference in an externment order as well as the observations of this Court in Khalid v. Addl. Dy. Commissioner of Police and Ors., 115 (2004) DLT 670, that adequacy or inadequacy of material is not a matter to be weighed by the Court exercising power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and Article 226 of the Constitution of India while examining an order passed on subjective satisfaction of a Competent Authority based on objective considerations, this Court finds itself unable to interfere with the impugned orders.
Delhi High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 3 - R C Chopra - Full Document
1