Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 27 (0.32 seconds)The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
Section 8 in The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
Section 25 in The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
Section 3 in The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
Article 22 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
M. Ahamedkutty vs Union Of India & Anr on 31 January, 1990
In the case of M.
Ahmedkutty Vs. Union of India & Anr. reported in
(1990)2 SCC 1 the Apex Court has succinctly held that
the bail orders constitute relevant and important
materials for consideration of the detaining authority. We
can profitably quote para 25 of the Judgment wherein the
apex court has held as under:
Union Of India & Ors vs Manoharlal Narang on 2 March, 1987
In Union of India v. Manoharlal Narang,
(1987) 2 SCC 241, the Supreme Court's interim
order in pending appeal against High Court's
quashing of a previous order of detention against
the same detenu was not considered by the
detaining authority while making the impugned
WP(C)(HC)02 of 2022
26
subsequent order against him. By the interim order
Supreme Court had permitted the detenu to be at
large on condition of his reporting to the police
station daily. It was held that nonconsideration of
the interim order which constituted a relevant and
important material was fatal to the subsequent
detention order on ground of non-application of
mind. If the detaining authority considered that
order one could not state with definiteness which
way his subjective satisfaction would have reacted
and it could have persuaded the detaining authority
to desist from passing the order of detention. If in
the instant case the bail order on condition of the
detenu‟s reporting to the customs authorities was
not considered the detention order itself would have
been affected. Therefore, it cannot be held that
while passing the detention order the bail order was
not relied on by the detaining authority.
S. Gurdip Singh vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 13 November, 1980
In S. Gurdip
Singh v. Union of India (1981) 1 SCC 419, following
Ichhu Devi Choraria v. Union of India (1980) 4 SCC
531 and Shalini Soni v. Union of India (1980) 4 SCC
544 it was reiterated that if the documents which
formed the basis of the order of detention were not
served on the detenu along with the grounds of
detention, in the eye of law there would be no
service of the grounds of detention and that
circumstances would vitiate his detention and make
it void ab initio."
Ichhu Devi Choraria vs Union Of India & Ors on 9 September, 1980
In S. Gurdip
Singh v. Union of India (1981) 1 SCC 419, following
Ichhu Devi Choraria v. Union of India (1980) 4 SCC
531 and Shalini Soni v. Union of India (1980) 4 SCC
544 it was reiterated that if the documents which
formed the basis of the order of detention were not
served on the detenu along with the grounds of
detention, in the eye of law there would be no
service of the grounds of detention and that
circumstances would vitiate his detention and make
it void ab initio."