Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.27 seconds)Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Union Of India vs Yumnam Anand M. @ Bocha @ Kora @ Suraj & Anr on 12 April, 2007
In Union of India vs. Yumnam Anand M. @ Bocha @ Kora @ Suraj, (2007) 10 SCC 190 while explaining the nature of writ of habeas corpus, the Supreme Court held that it is writ of right, it is not a writ of course. The application must show a prima facie case of his unlawful detention. Relevant para-7 of the judgment reads as under:
Sanyal Kumar vs Office Of The Additional Distt. ... on 10 August, 2018
[21] In Kanu Sanyal vs. Distt. Magistrate, (1973) 2 SCC 674 , the Supreme Court held that while dealing with a writ of habeas corpus, the Supreme Court held that it is essentially a procedural writ. It deals with the machinery of justice, not the substantive law. The object of the writ is to secure release of a person who is illegally restrained of his liberty.
Sulochana Bai vs State Of M.P. And Ors. on 24 September, 2007
[23] Similarly, in Sulochana Bai vs. State of M.P. & Ors, 2008 (2) MPHT 233, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh observed as under:
Manohar Lal Sharma vs The Principle Secretary & Others on 25 August, 2014
[26] In Manohar Lal Sharma Vs. Principal Secretary & Ors., since reported in (2014) 2 SCC 532, the Supreme Court observed as under :-
Lata Singh vs State Of U.P. & Another on 7 July, 2006
(C) During the pendency of the investigation, petitioner no.2 came to know that Rohit Bhatt@Manish Kumar Sharma carried her daughter to the Bench of this Hon'ble Court seeking civil protection, projecting that both of them are major and now are married couple and thus, their future may be secured by giving certain civil protection to them, accordingly, a Civil Writ Petition No.3002 of 2022 was filed by them and on 17.02.2022, co-ordinate Bench of this Court while relying upon the judgments of Lata Singh Vs. State of U.P. 2006 Cr.L.J. 3312 and Bhagwan Das Vs. NCT, New Delhi,(2011) 6 SCC 396 disposed of the aforesaid petition protecting the interest of the couple with certain conditions.