Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.78 seconds)Powanammal vs State Of Tamil Nadu And Anr on 15 January, 1999
18. As discussed by us and in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the decisions M. Ahamedkutty v. Union of
India, Powanammal v. State of Tamil Nadu, Yumnam Mangi Babu Singh v. State of Manipur, (cited supra), we are inclined to hold that non-supply of a copy of important and vital document, viz., immigration slip along with the grounds of detention to the detenu, though the detenu knew the contents of the same, vitiated the impugned detention order.
Section 5A in The Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 [Entire Act]
M. Ahamedkutty vs Union Of India & Anr on 31 January, 1990
18. As discussed by us and in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the decisions M. Ahamedkutty v. Union of
India, Powanammal v. State of Tamil Nadu, Yumnam Mangi Babu Singh v. State of Manipur, (cited supra), we are inclined to hold that non-supply of a copy of important and vital document, viz., immigration slip along with the grounds of detention to the detenu, though the detenu knew the contents of the same, vitiated the impugned detention order.
Aslam Ahmed Zahire Ahmed Shaik vs Union Of India And Ors on 4 April, 1989
26. In this case, though the detenu claims to have presented his representation on 8-3-1999 to jail authorities for transmitting
the same to the Government, the admitted position is that the Government received the said representation from the jail authorities only on 17-3-1999. In this process, though there is a delay of 8 to 9 days, the reasons for such delay have not been satisfactorily explained. Even the time of 14 days taken for obtaining para-wise remarks from the sponsoring authority by the detaining authority, no satisfactory explanation is offered to this Court in that regard also. Since there is no plausible explanation forthcoming from the respondents for the delay of more than 35 days occasioned in disposing of the representation of the detenu, in the light of the decisions of the Supreme Court Rajammal v. State of Tamil Nadu, Aslam Ahmed Zahire Ahmed Shaik v. Union of India, Rama Dhondu Borade v. V.K. Saraf, Commissioner of Police, (cited supra), we are inclined to hold that the unexplained delay by the respondents would render the impugned order of detention invalid.
Rama Dhondu Borade vs V.K. Saraf, Commissioner Of Police & Ors on 5 May, 1989
26. In this case, though the detenu claims to have presented his representation on 8-3-1999 to jail authorities for transmitting
the same to the Government, the admitted position is that the Government received the said representation from the jail authorities only on 17-3-1999. In this process, though there is a delay of 8 to 9 days, the reasons for such delay have not been satisfactorily explained. Even the time of 14 days taken for obtaining para-wise remarks from the sponsoring authority by the detaining authority, no satisfactory explanation is offered to this Court in that regard also. Since there is no plausible explanation forthcoming from the respondents for the delay of more than 35 days occasioned in disposing of the representation of the detenu, in the light of the decisions of the Supreme Court Rajammal v. State of Tamil Nadu, Aslam Ahmed Zahire Ahmed Shaik v. Union of India, Rama Dhondu Borade v. V.K. Saraf, Commissioner of Police, (cited supra), we are inclined to hold that the unexplained delay by the respondents would render the impugned order of detention invalid.
Rajammal vs State Of Tamil Nadu And Another on 14 December, 1998
26. In this case, though the detenu claims to have presented his representation on 8-3-1999 to jail authorities for transmitting
the same to the Government, the admitted position is that the Government received the said representation from the jail authorities only on 17-3-1999. In this process, though there is a delay of 8 to 9 days, the reasons for such delay have not been satisfactorily explained. Even the time of 14 days taken for obtaining para-wise remarks from the sponsoring authority by the detaining authority, no satisfactory explanation is offered to this Court in that regard also. Since there is no plausible explanation forthcoming from the respondents for the delay of more than 35 days occasioned in disposing of the representation of the detenu, in the light of the decisions of the Supreme Court Rajammal v. State of Tamil Nadu, Aslam Ahmed Zahire Ahmed Shaik v. Union of India, Rama Dhondu Borade v. V.K. Saraf, Commissioner of Police, (cited supra), we are inclined to hold that the unexplained delay by the respondents would render the impugned order of detention invalid.
Article 22 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 3 in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
Sita Ram Somani vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors. on 11 February, 1986
In the decisions Sita Ram Somani v. State of Rajasthan, K. Satyanarayan Subudhi v. Union of India, Vashist Narain
Karwaria v. State of U.P., (supra) and the unreported decision of the Supreme Court in Prem Prakash v. Union of India, (supra), the principle is very much clear that non-placement of the retraction of the confessional statement by the detenu before the detaining authority and non-consideration of the same while arriving at subjective satisfaction for passing the order of detention, goes to the root of the order of detention and makes the order of detention invalid. The further principle that emerges from the above decisions is that when relevant facts which would have weighed the satisfaction of the detaining authority one way or the other and influenced the mind of the detaining authority, have been purposely withheld and suppressed from the detaining authority, such suppression vitiates the satisfaction.