Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.35 seconds)Vedprakash Devkinandan Chiripal And ... vs State Of Gujarat And Anr. on 3 December, 1986
20. Considering the case on merits we find that the grounds of detention have not been placed by the respondents before us in view of the Full Bench decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Vedprakash Chiripal v. State of Gujarat (supra). However, the return itself also does not successfully meet the challenge made by the petitioner to the detention order.
Section 108 in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
S.M.D. Kiran Pasha vs Government Of Andhra Pradesh And Ors on 9 November, 1989
19. In view of the aforesaid Supreme Court judgment we are of the view that this Court is empowered to consider the petition of the petitioner seeking the writ of mandamus for quashing the impugned order on merits even though the order of detention has not been served on the petitioner and he has not actually been placed under detention. As back as in the year 1986 this Court has already taken a similar view in Fazal Hussain v. State of M. P., M. P. No. 1049 of 85 decided on 31-3-1986 wherein reliance was placed on the case of Jayantilal Bhagwandas Shah v. State of Maharashtra (supra) which has been approved by the Supreme Court in Kiran Pasha's case (supra).
Jayantilal Bhagwandas Shah And Etc. vs State Of Maharashtra And Others on 8 January, 1981
19. In view of the aforesaid Supreme Court judgment we are of the view that this Court is empowered to consider the petition of the petitioner seeking the writ of mandamus for quashing the impugned order on merits even though the order of detention has not been served on the petitioner and he has not actually been placed under detention. As back as in the year 1986 this Court has already taken a similar view in Fazal Hussain v. State of M. P., M. P. No. 1049 of 85 decided on 31-3-1986 wherein reliance was placed on the case of Jayantilal Bhagwandas Shah v. State of Maharashtra (supra) which has been approved by the Supreme Court in Kiran Pasha's case (supra).
Article 21 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974
Section 3 in The Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 [Entire Act]
Shaik Hanif, Gudma Majhi & Kamal Saha vs State Of West Bengal on 1 February, 1974
It is not the respondents' case that. the detaining authority is not available in the real sense, that no affidavit could be sworn and filed by him. A host of authorities were cited by Shri Gupta on this point, and they are mentioned below, but to my mind, it is not necessay to deal with them as the propositions laid down therein have not been disputed or distinguished. The authorities cited are: Shaik Hanif v. State of W. B., AIR 1974 SC 679, Jagdishprasad v. State of Bihar, AIR 1974 SC 911, AIR 1974 SC 2305, Ranjit Dam v. State of W. B., AIR 1972 SC 1753, Devilal Mahto v. State of Bihar, AIR 1982 SC 1548 and Mohinuddin v. Distt. Magistrate, Beed, AIR 1987 SC 1977."
Ramkumar vs Union Of India (Uoi) on 14 September, 1989
In M. P. No. 829 of 1989 decided by this Court on 14-9-1989 in the case of Ramkumar v. Union of India, after placing reliance on the Supreme Court authorities this Court has held in para 20 of the judgment as under: -
1