Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.26 seconds)State Of Tamil Nadu & Anr vs Abdullah Kadher Batcha & Anr on 12 November, 2008
20. This has been completely answered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the State of Tamil Nadu and Another v. Abdullah Kadher Batcha and
another, (cited supra), where the Court has held as follows:
M. Ahamedkutty vs Union Of India & Anr on 31 January, 1990
In this context, the learned counsel for detenu relied
upon the decision of this Court in M. Ahamedkutty vs. Union of India &
Anr., 1990 (2) SCC 1, that even if the document was within the
knowledge of the detenu, the same had to be served upon him.
Powanammal vs State Of Tamil Nadu And Anr on 15 January, 1999
He further
relied upon the decision of this Court in Powanammal vs. State of T.N. &
Anr., 1999 (2) SCC 413, to the effect that the serving of document in
English would not be an effective compliance with the provisions
of Article 22 of the Constitution and the documents had to be translated.
He submitted that that was a document (document at page No. 13) which
pertains to the declaration filed by him. It is the stand of the respondents
that it was a customs declaration card filled up by the detenu himself and,
therefore, he was aware of the contents of the said declaration and he had
Page 15 of 26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP(MD)No.1964 of 2022
also stated in the course of his statement before the authorities that he had
filled up such a card. It is not the case of the detenu that the said
document was not furnished by him. The said declaration which had been
filled by the detenu himself was furnished to him but the translation
thereof was not given to him. The grievance of the appellant is that Tamil
translation of the said document was not given to him. However, when
the said document had been filled by the detenu himself wherein he made
some entries, non-furnishing of Tamil translation of the same would not
result in any non-compliance of a document of which he had no
knowledge. If he had made a declaration and same is supplied to him, we
do not think that the same can be treated as non- furnishing of a
document or furnishing of a document the translation of which is needed.
Therefore, the two decisions on which the learned counsel for the detenu
has placed reliance will be of no assistance to him.”
Mariappan vs The District Collector And District ... on 18 August, 2014
In this context, a Division Bench judgment of this
Court in Mariappan v. District Collector and District Magistrate dated
18.08.2014, at Paragraph 72 has held as follows: