Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.98 seconds)M. Ahamedkutty vs Union Of India & Anr on 31 January, 1990
In fact the judgment delivered by this Court has also
considered the identical question with regard to delay in passing the
detention order and the court has also taken into consideration the
judgment rendered in the case of M. Ahamedkutty Vs. Union of India,
(1990) 2 SCC 1 sought to be relied upon by the counsel for the
respondents in the present case.
The Customs Act, 1962
Section 108 in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
Section 132 in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
Manish Gadodia vs Union Of India & Anr. on 4 December, 2014
8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival
contentions. Writ Petition (Crl.) No.1695/2014, titled as Manish
Gadodia Vs. Union of India & Anr., was filed by the co-detenue
wherein the detention order stands quashed amongst others on the
ground of delay in passing the detention order. We are unable to take a
view different from the view taken by the learned Division Bench which
was dealing with the same detention order with respect to the co-
detenue.
The Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974
Section 113 in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
T.A. Abdul Rahman vs State Of Kerala And Ors on 23 August, 1989
"10. The conspectus of the above decisions can be
summarised thus: The question whether the prejudicial
activities of a person necessitating to pass an order of
detention is proximate to the time when the order is made
or the live-link between the prejudicial activities and the
purpose of detention is snapped depends on the facts and
circumstances of each case. 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 follows that the test of proximity is
not a rigid or mechanical test by merely counting number
of months between the offending acts and the order of
detention. However, when there is undue and long delay
between the prejudicial activities and the passing of
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
causal connection has been broken in the circumstances of
each case.
Licil Antony vs State Of Kerala & Anr on 15 April, 2014
Also in the case of
W.P.( Crl.) 304/2015 Page 8 of 11
Licil Antony Vs. State of Kerala & Others, (2014), the Supreme
Court in an identical case of smuggling of Red Sanders has held
that: