Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 32 (0.63 seconds)
J. Sekar vs Union Of India & Ors. on 11 January, 2018 cites

Sushil Kumar Sharma vs Union Of India And Ors on 19 July, 2005

57. The main ground of attack on the second proviso to Section 5(1) of the PMLA is its alleged manifest arbitrariness. The Court is, however, not persuaded to agree with the above submission of the Petitioners for more than one reason. First, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the Union of India, the mere possibility that a provision may be abused is not a W.P.(C) 5320/2017 & connected batch matters Page 31 of 48 ground to strike it down under Article 14 of the Constitution. The law in this regard has been explained in a number of decisions. Illustratively, reference may be made to Sushil Kumar Sharma v. Union of India (supra) where it was observed as under:
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 289 - A Pasayat - Full Document

Union Of India vs Ex-Constable Dilip Kumar Jha on 14 August, 2014

(vii) It cannot be the ipse dixit of the officer to decide when to invoke the first proviso and when to invoke the second. Unless sufficient safeguards are read into the second proviso as regards the exercise of the powers contained therein, the entire provision will be rendered arbitrary and violative of the Article 14 of the Constitution. Reliance is placed on the decision in Union of India v. Dilip Kumar (2015) 4 SCC 421.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 20 - Full Document

The State Of Bombay And Another vs F.N. Balsara on 25 May, 1951

(viii) The second proviso to Section 5(1) PMLA, as it presently stands, is ‗manifestly arbitrary' as explained by the Supreme Court in State of W.P.(C) 5320/2017 & connected batch matters Page 24 of 48 Bombay v F.N. Balsara (1951) 2 SCR 682 and later expostulated in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) 5 SCC 1 and Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017) 9 SCC 1.
Supreme Court of India Cites 82 - Cited by 605 - S S Ali - Full Document

P.T. Munichikkanna Reddy & Ors vs Revamma And Ors on 24 April, 2007

It is contended that the ‗right to property' being a human right, as explained in P.T. Munichikkanna Reddy v. Revamma (2007) 6 SCC 59, there can be numerous instances where resort need not be had to the powers of attachment when in fact there is no real basis, material or apprehension that the property would be concealed, transferred or dealt with in a manner that frustrates its confiscation. In other words, resort to the second proviso should be had in the rarest of rare cases.
Supreme Court of India Cites 25 - Cited by 438 - S B Sinha - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next