Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (1.07 seconds)
Shishupal Kumar vs Union Of India & Anr on 10 March, 2015 cites

Manish Gadodia vs Union Of India & Anr. on 4 December, 2014

8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival contentions. Writ Petition (Crl.) No.1695/2014, titled as Manish Gadodia Vs. Union of India & Anr., was filed by the co-detenue wherein the detention order stands quashed amongst others on the ground of delay in passing the detention order. We are unable to take a view different from the view taken by the learned Division Bench which was dealing with the same detention order with respect to the co- detenue.
Delhi High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 4 - V Sanghi - Full Document

T.A. Abdul Rahman vs State Of Kerala And Ors on 23 August, 1989

"10. The conspectus of the above decisions can be summarised thus: The question whether the prejudicial activities of a person necessitating to pass an order of detention is proximate to the time when the order is made or the live-link between the prejudicial activities and the purpose of detention is snapped depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. No hard and fast rule can be precisely formulated that would be applicable under all circumstances and no exhaustive guidelines can be laid down in that behalf. It follows that the test of proximity is not a rigid or mechanical test by merely counting number of months between the offending acts and the order of detention. However, when there is undue and long delay between the prejudicial activities and the passing of detention order, the court has to scrutinise whether the detaining authority has satisfactorily examined such a delay and afforded a tenable and reasonable explanation as to why such a delay has occasioned, when called upon to answer and further the court has to investigate whether the causal connection has been broken in the circumstances of each case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 238 - S R Pandian - Full Document
1