Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 19 (0.21 seconds)

Abdul Latif Abdul Wahab Sheikh vs B.K. Jha & Anr on 9 February, 1987

In support of the submissions advanced, the learned counsel for petitioner has placed reliance on Abdul Latif Abdul Wahab Sheikh v. B.K. Jha and another, (1987) 2 SCC 22; Rajinder Arora v. Union of India and others, (2006) 4 SCC 796; Nasir Ahmad Malik v. State of J&K and others, 2006 (3) JKJ 395 (HC); Mohd. Yaqoob v. State of J&K and others, 2008(2) JKJ 225 (HC); Mohammad Ashraf Khan v. State and others, 2010(I) SLJ 365; Farooq Ahmad Sheikh v. State and others, 2017 (II) SLJ 681 (HC); Bashir Ahmad Rather v. State of J&K and others, 2017 (II) SLJ 775 (HC); and Reyaz Ahmad Dar v. State of J&K and another, 2018 (I) SLJ 427 (HC) .
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 308 - O C Reddy - Full Document

Rajinder Arora vs Union Of India And Ors on 10 March, 2006

In support of the submissions advanced, the learned counsel for petitioner has placed reliance on Abdul Latif Abdul Wahab Sheikh v. B.K. Jha and another, (1987) 2 SCC 22; Rajinder Arora v. Union of India and others, (2006) 4 SCC 796; Nasir Ahmad Malik v. State of J&K and others, 2006 (3) JKJ 395 (HC); Mohd. Yaqoob v. State of J&K and others, 2008(2) JKJ 225 (HC); Mohammad Ashraf Khan v. State and others, 2010(I) SLJ 365; Farooq Ahmad Sheikh v. State and others, 2017 (II) SLJ 681 (HC); Bashir Ahmad Rather v. State of J&K and others, 2017 (II) SLJ 775 (HC); and Reyaz Ahmad Dar v. State of J&K and another, 2018 (I) SLJ 427 (HC) .
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 211 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Farooq Ahmad Shaikh vs State And Ors on 31 October, 2017

In support of the submissions advanced, the learned counsel for petitioner has placed reliance on Abdul Latif Abdul Wahab Sheikh v. B.K. Jha and another, (1987) 2 SCC 22; Rajinder Arora v. Union of India and others, (2006) 4 SCC 796; Nasir Ahmad Malik v. State of J&K and others, 2006 (3) JKJ 395 (HC); Mohd. Yaqoob v. State of J&K and others, 2008(2) JKJ 225 (HC); Mohammad Ashraf Khan v. State and others, 2010(I) SLJ 365; Farooq Ahmad Sheikh v. State and others, 2017 (II) SLJ 681 (HC); Bashir Ahmad Rather v. State of J&K and others, 2017 (II) SLJ 775 (HC); and Reyaz Ahmad Dar v. State of J&K and another, 2018 (I) SLJ 427 (HC) .
Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench Cites 33 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Bashir Ahmad Rather vs State Of J&K; And Others on 17 May, 2017

In support of the submissions advanced, the learned counsel for petitioner has placed reliance on Abdul Latif Abdul Wahab Sheikh v. B.K. Jha and another, (1987) 2 SCC 22; Rajinder Arora v. Union of India and others, (2006) 4 SCC 796; Nasir Ahmad Malik v. State of J&K and others, 2006 (3) JKJ 395 (HC); Mohd. Yaqoob v. State of J&K and others, 2008(2) JKJ 225 (HC); Mohammad Ashraf Khan v. State and others, 2010(I) SLJ 365; Farooq Ahmad Sheikh v. State and others, 2017 (II) SLJ 681 (HC); Bashir Ahmad Rather v. State of J&K and others, 2017 (II) SLJ 775 (HC); and Reyaz Ahmad Dar v. State of J&K and another, 2018 (I) SLJ 427 (HC) .
Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench Cites 20 - Cited by 9 - T Rabstan - Full Document

Reyaz Ahmad Dar vs State Of J&K; And Others on 5 September, 2017

In support of the submissions advanced, the learned counsel for petitioner has placed reliance on Abdul Latif Abdul Wahab Sheikh v. B.K. Jha and another, (1987) 2 SCC 22; Rajinder Arora v. Union of India and others, (2006) 4 SCC 796; Nasir Ahmad Malik v. State of J&K and others, 2006 (3) JKJ 395 (HC); Mohd. Yaqoob v. State of J&K and others, 2008(2) JKJ 225 (HC); Mohammad Ashraf Khan v. State and others, 2010(I) SLJ 365; Farooq Ahmad Sheikh v. State and others, 2017 (II) SLJ 681 (HC); Bashir Ahmad Rather v. State of J&K and others, 2017 (II) SLJ 775 (HC); and Reyaz Ahmad Dar v. State of J&K and another, 2018 (I) SLJ 427 (HC) .
Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench Cites 26 - Cited by 4 - M K Hanjura - Full Document

Gautam Jain vs U.O.I.& Anr on 4 January, 2017

17.If one looks at the acts, the J&K Public Safety Act, 1978, is designed to prevent, those are all such acts that are prejudicial to the security of the State or the maintenance of public order. The acts, indulged in by the persons, who act in concert with other persons, quite often have the national level ramifications. These acts are preceded by a good amount of planning and organisation by the set of the people fascinated in tumultuousness. They are not like ordinary law and order crimes. If, however, in any given case a single act is found to be not sufficient to sustain the order of detention that may well be quashed, but it cannot be stated as a principle that one single act cannot constitute the basis for the detention. On the contrary, it does. In other words, it is not necessary that there should be multiplicity of the grounds for making or sustaining an order of detention. The said views and principles have been reiterated by the Supreme Court in Gautam Jain v. Union of India anr, AIR 2017 SC 230.
Supreme Court of India Cites 23 - Cited by 100 - A K Sikri - Full Document

The State Of Bombay vs Atma Ram Sridhar Vaidya on 25 January, 1951

18.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, with a view to substantiate the grounds of challenge, urges that since the detaining authority has adopted in the grounds of detention in verbatim what is supplied to it by the sponsoring authority by way of a dossier, therefore, it is the case where there is total non-application of mind on the part of detaining authority to arrive at requisite satisfaction as envisaged under the J&K Public Safety Act, 1978. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of both the sides. At this juncture, it would be befitting to refer to the observations made by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of The State of Bombay v. Atma Ram Shridhar Vaidya AIR 1951 SC 157. The paragraph 5 of the judgement lays law on the point and therefore in this context is reproduced hereunder:
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 283 - H J Kania - Full Document
1   2 Next