Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 19 (0.26 seconds)
Masrat Alam Bhat vs . State Of J&K And Ors. on 16 May, 2019 cites

Chhagan Bagwan Kahar vs N.L. Kalna & Ors on 16 March, 1989

13. Perusal of the detention reveals that the content and composition of the grounds of detention in successive detention orders remains same with only minor additions attributed to the developments subsequent to the detention orders, unmindful of the fact that the detenu all along remained in detention. Once we find the grounds of detention in support of quashed/revoked detention order(s) and one under challenge to be, in substance, identical, it is next to be seen what is its fall out on the detention order. The question surfaced in Chhagan Bhagwan Kahar v. N. L. Kalna and others [AIR 1989 SC 1234]. The Supreme Court held:
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 121 - S R Pandian - Full Document

Union Of India & Ors vs Arvind Shergill & Anr on 13 September, 2000

10. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents, while taking reliance on the judgments reported in 1986 (1) SCC 404, "Union of India Vs. Arvind Shergill" (AIR 2000 SC 2924), and "The Secretary to Government Vs. Nabila" (2015 Cr. L. J 1364), submitted that the impugned order of detention is within the parameters of law, therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 71 - Full Document

The Sec.To Govt. Public(L.&O.;)D.S. & ... vs Nabila & Anr on 9 December, 2014

10. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents, while taking reliance on the judgments reported in 1986 (1) SCC 404, "Union of India Vs. Arvind Shergill" (AIR 2000 SC 2924), and "The Secretary to Government Vs. Nabila" (2015 Cr. L. J 1364), submitted that the impugned order of detention is within the parameters of law, therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed.
Supreme Court of India Cites 28 - Cited by 10 - M Y Eqbal - Full Document

Haradhan Saha & Another vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 21 August, 1974

18. In opposition, learned counsel for the respondents would contend that material relied upon by the detaining authority for deriving subjective satisfaction while issuing the impugned order of detention has been supplied to the detenu. According to him, even if presumed though not admitted that the material forming base of the grounds of detention has not been supplied to the detenu, yet the non-supply of the documents would not prejudice the detenue as the details of his activities have been specifically made mention of in the grounds of detention. Furthermore, the details of past activities, as referred to in the grounds of detention, are given simply to show what was the past of the detenue, therefore, the documents which are connected with past activities of the detenue were not required to be supplied nor non-supply of such documents would cause prejudice to the detenue in making a representation. It is also contended that the power of preventive detention is different from punitive detention and preventive detention is largely based on suspicion and the Court is not an appropriate forum to investigate the question whether circumstances of suspicion exist warranting restraint on a person. Besides above, learned counsel also contended that the requisite material has HCP No.443/2018 MOHAMMAD ALTAF BHAT 2019.05.20 09:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 11 of 19 been supplied to the detenue so as to enable him to file a representation which he has not chosen to do. In support of his argument, learned counsel for the respondents placed on various judgments which include judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Hardhan Saha and Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal and Ors." reported in (1975) 3 SCC 198 and "The Secretary to Government Vs. Nabila" 2015 Cr. L. J 1364.
Supreme Court of India Cites 33 - Cited by 551 - A N Ray - Full Document

Sophia Gulam Mohd. Bham vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 13 August, 1999

23. Further, non-supply of the relevant material/documents, from which detaining authority derived subjective, satisfaction, would amount of violation of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, so deprivation of a valuable right. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment rendered in the case "Sophia Gulam Mohd. Bham v. State of Maharashtra & Ors" (AIR 1999 SC 3051), wherein it has been held:
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 618 - S S Ahmad - Full Document
1   2 Next