Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 23 (0.25 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

Prem Chand vs Union Of India And Ors on 11 November, 1980

6. It is further argued that the Supreme Court in Prem Chand v. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1981 SC 613, has held that Sections 47 and 50 have to be read strictly and mere apprehension of the police is not enough. There must be a clear and present danger based upon credible material which makes the movements and acts of the person involved alarming or dangerous or fraught with violence. There must be sufficient reason to believe that the person proceeded against is so desperate and dangerous that his mere presence in the concerned area is hazardous to the community and its safety.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 42 - V R Iyer - 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
1   2 3 Next