Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.23 seconds)The Customs Act, 1962
Section 5 in Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Section 5A in The Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 [Entire Act]
Section 124 in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
Section 3 in The Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 [Entire Act]
Rajendrakumar Natvarlal Shah vs State Of Gujarat & Ors on 10 May, 1988
16-A. By this judgment the view taken by the High Courts that unexplained delay in passing the order of detention is fatal was overruled. In para 9 of the judgment, the Supreme Court has pointed out that some delay is inherent in the procedure of passing the order of detention under section 3 of the COFEPOSA Act. In the aforesaid case of the Supreme Court there was five months delay in passing the order of detention from the date of the prejudicial activity of the detenu out of which although there was an unexplained delay from 2-2-1987 i.e. the date of the order or his detention, it was held that the said delay did not give rise to the legitimate inference that the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the District Magistrate was not rational connection between the grounds and the impugned order of detention. It is in the light of the above decision of the Supreme Court that the question of delay in passing the order of detention has to be considered.
The Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974
Section 104 in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
T.A. Abdul Rahman vs State Of Kerala And Ors on 23 August, 1989
However, it is clear from the decision of the Supreme Court in T.A. Abdul Rahman's case that 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 is held by the Supreme Court in the above case that the test of proximity is not a rigid or a mechanical test to be applied by merely counting number or months between the offending acts and the order of detention, although when there is undue and long delay between the prejudicial activities and the passing of the 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 casual connection has been broken in the circumstances of each case.