Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.33 seconds)
Prithvi Raj vs State Of Rajasthan on 12 March, 2019 cites

Laxman Lal(Dead)Through Lrs. & Anr vs State Of Rajasthan & Ors on 1 March, 2013

2.1 The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in bunch of petitions, lead case being D.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No. 60/2018, titled as Laxman vs. State of Rajasthan, a Division Bench of this Court on 6.4.2018, has held that if a vehicle has been seized under the Provisions of Mines and Minerals (2 of 9) [CRLMP-1281/2019] (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 (for short 'MMDR Act'), for 72 hours competent Officer can retain the vehicle and thereafter, he is mandatorily required to report the matter to his superior officer as also to the Magistrate having jurisdiction. The Division Bench has held as under:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 28 - Cited by 266 - R M Lodha - Full Document

Sunderbha1 Ambalal Desai vs State Of Gujarat on 1 October, 2002

2.2 The learned counsel for the petitioner has stated at Bar that no confiscation proceedings are pending qua the vehicle in question and the same is case property. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat, (2002) 10 SCC 283, to contend that the Supreme court has held that the vehicle should not be permitted to remain parked in the police station as same shall gather rust and shall not remain useful.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 3611 - Full Document
1   2 Next