Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 25 (0.37 seconds)
Vajir Misbahul Sha vs State Of Gujarat on 17 September, 2020 cites

Additional Secretary To The Government ... vs Smt. Alka Subhash Gadia And Anr on 20 December, 1990

26 It is not in dispute that the Supreme Court in categorical terms delineated the parameters on which order of detention at preexecution stage can be questioned in the case of Alka Subhash Gadia and Another (supra). In that case an order of detention was passed against the husband of the respondent No.1 under Section 3(1) of COFEPOSA. The order, however, could not be served on him as he was absconding. Hence a declaration was made that he fell within the category mentioned in Section 2(b) of the SAFEMA. Thereafter, a notice was issued under Section 6(1) of the SAFEMA to show cause as to why the properties mentioned in the schedule to the said notice should not be forfeited to the Central Government for reasons recorded in the accompaniment. A copy of the notice along with the schedule of the properties and the copy of the reasons for forfeiture of property were also sent to the respondent No.1. The Respondent No.1, thereafter, filed a writ petition under Article 226 before the High Court challenging the detention order as well as the show cause notice. The High Court by its impugned decision held that the writ petition was maintainable for challenging the detention order even though the detenu was not served with the order and he had thus not surrendered to the authorities. The High Court further directed that the detention order, the grounds of detention, and the documents relied upon for passing the detention order be furnished to the detenu and that they should also be produced before the court. The High Court also directed the authorities to supply the said documents to the counsel for the respondent No.1. The Assistant Director of Enforcement filed an affidavit before the High Court stating that although they were willing to produce the order of detention and the Page 4 of 23 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 13 21:02:22 IST 2020 C/SCA/11221/2020 ORDER grounds of detention for the perusal of the Court, yet they cannot furnish them to the respondent No.1, unless, as required by the Act, the detenu first submits to the impugned order. The High Court held that the officers were guilty of contempt of court and directed the matter to be listed to take appropriate action for contempt. It is at that stage that the special leave petitions, giving rise to the appeals, were filed before the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 570 - P B Sawant - Full Document

Sayed Taher Bawamiya vs Joint Secretary To The Govt. Of India And ... on 3 August, 2000

38 We are of the view that the case does not appear to be falling in the categories, where pre­execution challenge to the Detention Order ought to be permissible. The Supreme Court in "Naresh Kumar Goyal" (Supra) (a three judge Bench decision), after a comprehensive review of the case law and noticing the principles laid down in Alka Subhash Gadia's case (Supra), also referred to "Sayed Taher Bawamiya V. Joint Secretary to the Government of India and others", reported in 2000(8) SCC 630 : (a three judge Bench decision), wherein it was held that the Court in Alka Gadia's case (Supra) was also concerned with the matter, where the detention order had not been served, but, the High Court had entertained the petition under Article 226 of the Page 15 of 23 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 13 21:02:22 IST 2020 C/SCA/11221/2020 ORDER Constitution of India. The Court held that the equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 and Article 32, which is discretionary in nature, should not be exercised in a case where the proposed detenu successfully evades the service of the order. If, in every case the detenu is permitted to challenge and seek the stay of the operation of the order before its execution, the very purpose of the order and the law under which it is made, will be frustrated, since the order are in operation for a limited period. The Supreme Court, however, noted that the Courts have necessary power in appropriate cases to interfere with the detention order at the pre­execution stage, but, the scope of interference is very limited. It was held that the Courts would interfere at the pre­execution stage with detention orders, only after they were satisfied of the existence of the five situations enumerated earlier. In the instant case, it is the petitioner's own contention that he has not allowed the detention order to be served on him.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 156 - Full Document

Naresh Kumar Goyal vs Union Of India And Others on 5 October, 2005

38 We are of the view that the case does not appear to be falling in the categories, where pre­execution challenge to the Detention Order ought to be permissible. The Supreme Court in "Naresh Kumar Goyal" (Supra) (a three judge Bench decision), after a comprehensive review of the case law and noticing the principles laid down in Alka Subhash Gadia's case (Supra), also referred to "Sayed Taher Bawamiya V. Joint Secretary to the Government of India and others", reported in 2000(8) SCC 630 : (a three judge Bench decision), wherein it was held that the Court in Alka Gadia's case (Supra) was also concerned with the matter, where the detention order had not been served, but, the High Court had entertained the petition under Article 226 of the Page 15 of 23 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 13 21:02:22 IST 2020 C/SCA/11221/2020 ORDER Constitution of India. The Court held that the equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 and Article 32, which is discretionary in nature, should not be exercised in a case where the proposed detenu successfully evades the service of the order. If, in every case the detenu is permitted to challenge and seek the stay of the operation of the order before its execution, the very purpose of the order and the law under which it is made, will be frustrated, since the order are in operation for a limited period. The Supreme Court, however, noted that the Courts have necessary power in appropriate cases to interfere with the detention order at the pre­execution stage, but, the scope of interference is very limited. It was held that the Courts would interfere at the pre­execution stage with detention orders, only after they were satisfied of the existence of the five situations enumerated earlier. In the instant case, it is the petitioner's own contention that he has not allowed the detention order to be served on him.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 173 - B P Singh - Full Document
1   2 3 Next