Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 27 (0.26 seconds)The Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973
The Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974
Deepak Bajaj vs State Of Maharashtra & Anr on 12 November, 2008
14. As far as the maintainability of the writ petition in the pre-detention stage is concerned, it has been settled by the Supreme Court in a recent judgement in Deepak Bajaj v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. reported in AIR 2009 SC 628. In view of the decisions of both Supreme Court as well as this High Court, maintainability of writ petition at pre-detention stage is upheld and the preliminary objections raised by the respondents are hereby rejected.
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 49 in The Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
Article 32 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Rajinder Arora vs Union Of India And Ors on 10 March, 2006
For entertaining the said writ petition, preliminary objection was raised by the respondents relying upon the decisions rendered in State of Maharashtra versus Bhaurao Punjabrao Gawande reported in AIR 2008 SC 1705 following the decisions in Additional Secretary to the Government of India and others versus Smt. Alka Subhash Gadia and the other decisions in Rajinder Arora vs. Union of India and others reported in 2006 (4) SCC 796 and in Alpesh Navindchandra Shah vs. State of Maharashtra and others reported in 2007 2 SCC 777. After analising the aforesaid judgment, the Supreme Court observed as follows:
Alpesh Navinchandra Shah vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 26 February, 2007
For entertaining the said writ petition, preliminary objection was raised by the respondents relying upon the decisions rendered in State of Maharashtra versus Bhaurao Punjabrao Gawande reported in AIR 2008 SC 1705 following the decisions in Additional Secretary to the Government of India and others versus Smt. Alka Subhash Gadia and the other decisions in Rajinder Arora vs. Union of India and others reported in 2006 (4) SCC 796 and in Alpesh Navindchandra Shah vs. State of Maharashtra and others reported in 2007 2 SCC 777. After analising the aforesaid judgment, the Supreme Court observed as follows:
Dwarka Nath vs Income-Tax Officer, Special Circle ... on 29 March, 1965
" 28. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that a writ of habeaus Corpus lies only when there is illegal detention, and in the present case since the petitioner has not yet been arrested, no writ of habeas corpus can be issued. We regret we cannot agree, and that for two reasons. Firstly Article 226 and Article 32 of the Constitution permit the the High Court and the Supreme Court to not only issue the wirts which were traditionally issued by British Courts but these Articles give much wider powers to this court and the High Court. This is because Article 32 and Article 22 state that the Supreme Court and High Court can issue writs in the nature of habeas corpus, Mandamus, Cetiorari etc. and they can also issue orders and directions apart from issuing writs. The word 'in the nature of imply that the powers of this court or the High Court are not subject to the traditional restrictions on the powers of British Courts to issue writs. Thus the power of this court and the High Court are much wider than those of the British Courts vide Dwarka Nath vs. Income Tax Officer, Special Circle, D Ward, Kanpur and Anr., AIR 1966 SC 81 (vide para 4), Shri Anadi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandasjiswami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust & Ors. vs. V.R.Rudani & Ors. AIR 1989 SC 1607 (vide paras 16 to 18), etc. Secondly, what the petitioner really prays for is a writ in the natuare of certiorari to quash the impugned detention order and/or a writ in the nature of mandamus for restraining the respondents from arresting him. Hence even if the petitioner is not in detention a writ of certiorari and/or mandamus can issue."