Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.47 seconds)Section 3 in The Foreigners Act, 1946 [Entire Act]
State vs Ibrahim Nabiji on 9 December, 1958
This is also the principle enunciated in State v. Ashfaq Ahmed ; State v. Ibrahim Nabiji, : Afzar Ali v. State, and Abdul Jalil v. State, 1962 (1) Cri LJ 13 (Assam). Our attention was not drawn to any ruling which has struck a different note. In cur opinion, the doctrine of these cases is in accord with the spirit and letter of Section 3 (2) (c) of the Foreigners Act. On the language of the section, it is difficult to take any other view. In the circumstances, the petitioner cannot successfully challenge the direction issued by the State of Andhra Pradesh for his leaving India.
Afzar Ali Baig vs The State on 16 January, 1961
This is also the principle enunciated in State v. Ashfaq Ahmed ; State v. Ibrahim Nabiji, : Afzar Ali v. State, and Abdul Jalil v. State, 1962 (1) Cri LJ 13 (Assam). Our attention was not drawn to any ruling which has struck a different note. In cur opinion, the doctrine of these cases is in accord with the spirit and letter of Section 3 (2) (c) of the Foreigners Act. On the language of the section, it is difficult to take any other view. In the circumstances, the petitioner cannot successfully challenge the direction issued by the State of Andhra Pradesh for his leaving India.
T.A. Mahomed Usman vs State Of Madras Represented By Secy. To ... on 17 November, 1959
7. There is a long line of authority in support of this view. It was ruled by a Division Bench of the Madras High Court in Mahomed Usman v. State of Madras, that for the purpose of enabling the Government to pass an order under Section 3 of the Foreigners Act it was not the status of the individual when he entered India that should be taken into account but his status on the date when the order was passed or direction issued.
Section 2 in The Foreigners Act, 1946 [Entire Act]
Section 9 in The Foreigners Act, 1946 [Entire Act]
Abdul Jalil vs The State on 10 May, 1960
This is also the principle enunciated in State v. Ashfaq Ahmed ; State v. Ibrahim Nabiji, : Afzar Ali v. State, and Abdul Jalil v. State, 1962 (1) Cri LJ 13 (Assam). Our attention was not drawn to any ruling which has struck a different note. In cur opinion, the doctrine of these cases is in accord with the spirit and letter of Section 3 (2) (c) of the Foreigners Act. On the language of the section, it is difficult to take any other view. In the circumstances, the petitioner cannot successfully challenge the direction issued by the State of Andhra Pradesh for his leaving India.
State vs Ashfaq Ahmad on 14 July, 1960
This is also the principle enunciated in State v. Ashfaq Ahmed ; State v. Ibrahim Nabiji, : Afzar Ali v. State, and Abdul Jalil v. State, 1962 (1) Cri LJ 13 (Assam). Our attention was not drawn to any ruling which has struck a different note. In cur opinion, the doctrine of these cases is in accord with the spirit and letter of Section 3 (2) (c) of the Foreigners Act. On the language of the section, it is difficult to take any other view. In the circumstances, the petitioner cannot successfully challenge the direction issued by the State of Andhra Pradesh for his leaving India.
1