Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.23 seconds)Section 5 in The Passports Act, 1967 [Entire Act]
Section 6 in The Passports Act, 1967 [Entire Act]
Section 8 in The Passports Act, 1967 [Entire Act]
Section 10 in The Passports Act, 1967 [Entire Act]
Section 9 in The Passports Act, 1967 [Entire Act]
Mahesh Kumar Agrawal vs Idbi Bank Ltd. 21 Cont/706/2017 ... on 26 February, 2018
The first respondent is
directed to renew/re-issue the petitioner’s passport, after following due
procedure, by considering the representation dated 19.08.2025, in the light of
the dicta laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mahesh Kumar Agarwal
v. Union of India and Another (cited supra). The said exercise shall be
completed within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of
this order. It is needless to state that, for travelling abroad, the petitioner shall
__________
Page9 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/02/2026 07:57:59 pm )
WP No. 2866 of 2026
obtain permission from the concerned Judicial Magistrate before whom the
cases are pending. No costs.
Section 7 in The Passports Act, 1967 [Entire Act]
Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu vs Central Bureau Of Investigation. on 27 September, 2021
21. The legitimate purpose behind Section 6(2)(f) and
Section 10(3)(e) is to ensure that a person facing criminal
proceedings remains amenable to the jurisdiction of the
criminal court. That purpose is fully served in the present
case by the conditions imposed by the NIA Court, Ranchi,
and the Delhi High Court, which require the appellant to
__________
Page8 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/02/2026 07:57:59 pm )
WP No. 2866 of 2026
seek prior permission before any foreign travel and, in the
NIA case, to re-deposit the passport immediately after
renewal. To add to these safeguards an indefinite denial of
even a renewed passport, when both criminal courts have
consciously permitted renewal, would be a disproportionate
and unreasonable restriction on the appellant’s liberty.”