Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 21 (0.26 seconds)
Tanveer Ahmad Malik vs Union Territory Of J&K And Another on 7 February, 2022 cites

Rameshwar Shaw vs District Magistrate, Burdwan & Anr on 11 September, 1963

In Dharmendra Suganchand Chelawat & anr. V. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 1196, the Supreme Court, while considering the same issue has reconsidered its earlier judgments on the point in Rameshwar Shaw v. District Magistrate, 3 WP(Crl) No. 141/2021 Burdwan, AIR 1964 SC 334; Masood Alam v. Union of India, AIR 1973 SC 897; Dulal Roy v. District Magistrate, Burdwan, AIR 1975 SC 1508; Alijan Mian v. District Magistrate, Dhanbad, AIR 1983 SC 1130; Ramesh Yadav v. District Magistrate, Etah, AIR 1986 SC 315; Suraj Pal Sahu v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1986 SC 2177; Binod Singh v. District Magistrate, Dhanbad, AIR 1986 SC 2090; Smt Shashi Aggarwal v. State of U.P., AIR 1988 SC 596, and came to the conclusion that an order for detention can be passed against a person in custody and for that purpose, it is necessary that grounds of detention must show that (i) detaining authority was aware of the fact that detenu is already in detention; and (ii) there were compelling reasons justifying such detention despite the fact that detenu is already in detention. The expression "compelling reasons" in the context of making an order for detention of a person already in custody implies that there must be cogent material before detaining authority on the basis whereof it may be satisfied that (a) detenu is likely to be released from custody in near future, and (b) taking into account the nature of antecedent activities of detenu, it is likely that after his release from custody he would indulge in prejudicial activities and it is necessary to detain him in order to prevent him from engaging in such activities.
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 351 - P B Gajendragadkar - Full Document

Masood Alam Etc vs Union Of India & Ors on 11 January, 1973

In Dharmendra Suganchand Chelawat & anr. V. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 1196, the Supreme Court, while considering the same issue has reconsidered its earlier judgments on the point in Rameshwar Shaw v. District Magistrate, 3 WP(Crl) No. 141/2021 Burdwan, AIR 1964 SC 334; Masood Alam v. Union of India, AIR 1973 SC 897; Dulal Roy v. District Magistrate, Burdwan, AIR 1975 SC 1508; Alijan Mian v. District Magistrate, Dhanbad, AIR 1983 SC 1130; Ramesh Yadav v. District Magistrate, Etah, AIR 1986 SC 315; Suraj Pal Sahu v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1986 SC 2177; Binod Singh v. District Magistrate, Dhanbad, AIR 1986 SC 2090; Smt Shashi Aggarwal v. State of U.P., AIR 1988 SC 596, and came to the conclusion that an order for detention can be passed against a person in custody and for that purpose, it is necessary that grounds of detention must show that (i) detaining authority was aware of the fact that detenu is already in detention; and (ii) there were compelling reasons justifying such detention despite the fact that detenu is already in detention. The expression "compelling reasons" in the context of making an order for detention of a person already in custody implies that there must be cogent material before detaining authority on the basis whereof it may be satisfied that (a) detenu is likely to be released from custody in near future, and (b) taking into account the nature of antecedent activities of detenu, it is likely that after his release from custody he would indulge in prejudicial activities and it is necessary to detain him in order to prevent him from engaging in such activities.
Supreme Court of India Cites 30 - Cited by 50 - A Alagiriswami - Full Document

Dulal Roy vs The District Magistrate, Burdwan And ... on 15 January, 1975

In Dharmendra Suganchand Chelawat & anr. V. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 1196, the Supreme Court, while considering the same issue has reconsidered its earlier judgments on the point in Rameshwar Shaw v. District Magistrate, 3 WP(Crl) No. 141/2021 Burdwan, AIR 1964 SC 334; Masood Alam v. Union of India, AIR 1973 SC 897; Dulal Roy v. District Magistrate, Burdwan, AIR 1975 SC 1508; Alijan Mian v. District Magistrate, Dhanbad, AIR 1983 SC 1130; Ramesh Yadav v. District Magistrate, Etah, AIR 1986 SC 315; Suraj Pal Sahu v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1986 SC 2177; Binod Singh v. District Magistrate, Dhanbad, AIR 1986 SC 2090; Smt Shashi Aggarwal v. State of U.P., AIR 1988 SC 596, and came to the conclusion that an order for detention can be passed against a person in custody and for that purpose, it is necessary that grounds of detention must show that (i) detaining authority was aware of the fact that detenu is already in detention; and (ii) there were compelling reasons justifying such detention despite the fact that detenu is already in detention. The expression "compelling reasons" in the context of making an order for detention of a person already in custody implies that there must be cogent material before detaining authority on the basis whereof it may be satisfied that (a) detenu is likely to be released from custody in near future, and (b) taking into account the nature of antecedent activities of detenu, it is likely that after his release from custody he would indulge in prejudicial activities and it is necessary to detain him in order to prevent him from engaging in such activities.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 44 - R S Sarkaria - Full Document

Alijan Mian And Another vs District Magistrate, Dhanbad on 13 September, 1983

In Dharmendra Suganchand Chelawat & anr. V. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 1196, the Supreme Court, while considering the same issue has reconsidered its earlier judgments on the point in Rameshwar Shaw v. District Magistrate, 3 WP(Crl) No. 141/2021 Burdwan, AIR 1964 SC 334; Masood Alam v. Union of India, AIR 1973 SC 897; Dulal Roy v. District Magistrate, Burdwan, AIR 1975 SC 1508; Alijan Mian v. District Magistrate, Dhanbad, AIR 1983 SC 1130; Ramesh Yadav v. District Magistrate, Etah, AIR 1986 SC 315; Suraj Pal Sahu v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1986 SC 2177; Binod Singh v. District Magistrate, Dhanbad, AIR 1986 SC 2090; Smt Shashi Aggarwal v. State of U.P., AIR 1988 SC 596, and came to the conclusion that an order for detention can be passed against a person in custody and for that purpose, it is necessary that grounds of detention must show that (i) detaining authority was aware of the fact that detenu is already in detention; and (ii) there were compelling reasons justifying such detention despite the fact that detenu is already in detention. The expression "compelling reasons" in the context of making an order for detention of a person already in custody implies that there must be cogent material before detaining authority on the basis whereof it may be satisfied that (a) detenu is likely to be released from custody in near future, and (b) taking into account the nature of antecedent activities of detenu, it is likely that after his release from custody he would indulge in prejudicial activities and it is necessary to detain him in order to prevent him from engaging in such activities.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 68 - R B Misra - Full Document

Ramesh Yadav vs District Magistrate, Etah And Ors. on 13 September, 1985

In Dharmendra Suganchand Chelawat & anr. V. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 1196, the Supreme Court, while considering the same issue has reconsidered its earlier judgments on the point in Rameshwar Shaw v. District Magistrate, 3 WP(Crl) No. 141/2021 Burdwan, AIR 1964 SC 334; Masood Alam v. Union of India, AIR 1973 SC 897; Dulal Roy v. District Magistrate, Burdwan, AIR 1975 SC 1508; Alijan Mian v. District Magistrate, Dhanbad, AIR 1983 SC 1130; Ramesh Yadav v. District Magistrate, Etah, AIR 1986 SC 315; Suraj Pal Sahu v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1986 SC 2177; Binod Singh v. District Magistrate, Dhanbad, AIR 1986 SC 2090; Smt Shashi Aggarwal v. State of U.P., AIR 1988 SC 596, and came to the conclusion that an order for detention can be passed against a person in custody and for that purpose, it is necessary that grounds of detention must show that (i) detaining authority was aware of the fact that detenu is already in detention; and (ii) there were compelling reasons justifying such detention despite the fact that detenu is already in detention. The expression "compelling reasons" in the context of making an order for detention of a person already in custody implies that there must be cogent material before detaining authority on the basis whereof it may be satisfied that (a) detenu is likely to be released from custody in near future, and (b) taking into account the nature of antecedent activities of detenu, it is likely that after his release from custody he would indulge in prejudicial activities and it is necessary to detain him in order to prevent him from engaging in such activities.
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 312 - R B Misra - Full Document

Suraj Pal Sahu vs State Of Maharashtra &Ors on 25 September, 1986

In Dharmendra Suganchand Chelawat & anr. V. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 1196, the Supreme Court, while considering the same issue has reconsidered its earlier judgments on the point in Rameshwar Shaw v. District Magistrate, 3 WP(Crl) No. 141/2021 Burdwan, AIR 1964 SC 334; Masood Alam v. Union of India, AIR 1973 SC 897; Dulal Roy v. District Magistrate, Burdwan, AIR 1975 SC 1508; Alijan Mian v. District Magistrate, Dhanbad, AIR 1983 SC 1130; Ramesh Yadav v. District Magistrate, Etah, AIR 1986 SC 315; Suraj Pal Sahu v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1986 SC 2177; Binod Singh v. District Magistrate, Dhanbad, AIR 1986 SC 2090; Smt Shashi Aggarwal v. State of U.P., AIR 1988 SC 596, and came to the conclusion that an order for detention can be passed against a person in custody and for that purpose, it is necessary that grounds of detention must show that (i) detaining authority was aware of the fact that detenu is already in detention; and (ii) there were compelling reasons justifying such detention despite the fact that detenu is already in detention. The expression "compelling reasons" in the context of making an order for detention of a person already in custody implies that there must be cogent material before detaining authority on the basis whereof it may be satisfied that (a) detenu is likely to be released from custody in near future, and (b) taking into account the nature of antecedent activities of detenu, it is likely that after his release from custody he would indulge in prejudicial activities and it is necessary to detain him in order to prevent him from engaging in such activities.
Supreme Court of India Cites 46 - Cited by 75 - S Mukharji - Full Document

Binod Singh vs District Magistrate Dhanbad Bihar & ... on 26 September, 1986

In Dharmendra Suganchand Chelawat & anr. V. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 1196, the Supreme Court, while considering the same issue has reconsidered its earlier judgments on the point in Rameshwar Shaw v. District Magistrate, 3 WP(Crl) No. 141/2021 Burdwan, AIR 1964 SC 334; Masood Alam v. Union of India, AIR 1973 SC 897; Dulal Roy v. District Magistrate, Burdwan, AIR 1975 SC 1508; Alijan Mian v. District Magistrate, Dhanbad, AIR 1983 SC 1130; Ramesh Yadav v. District Magistrate, Etah, AIR 1986 SC 315; Suraj Pal Sahu v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1986 SC 2177; Binod Singh v. District Magistrate, Dhanbad, AIR 1986 SC 2090; Smt Shashi Aggarwal v. State of U.P., AIR 1988 SC 596, and came to the conclusion that an order for detention can be passed against a person in custody and for that purpose, it is necessary that grounds of detention must show that (i) detaining authority was aware of the fact that detenu is already in detention; and (ii) there were compelling reasons justifying such detention despite the fact that detenu is already in detention. The expression "compelling reasons" in the context of making an order for detention of a person already in custody implies that there must be cogent material before detaining authority on the basis whereof it may be satisfied that (a) detenu is likely to be released from custody in near future, and (b) taking into account the nature of antecedent activities of detenu, it is likely that after his release from custody he would indulge in prejudicial activities and it is necessary to detain him in order to prevent him from engaging in such activities.
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 302 - S Mukharji - Full Document

Smt.Shashi Agarwal vs State Of Up & Ors on 12 January, 1988

In Dharmendra Suganchand Chelawat & anr. V. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 1196, the Supreme Court, while considering the same issue has reconsidered its earlier judgments on the point in Rameshwar Shaw v. District Magistrate, 3 WP(Crl) No. 141/2021 Burdwan, AIR 1964 SC 334; Masood Alam v. Union of India, AIR 1973 SC 897; Dulal Roy v. District Magistrate, Burdwan, AIR 1975 SC 1508; Alijan Mian v. District Magistrate, Dhanbad, AIR 1983 SC 1130; Ramesh Yadav v. District Magistrate, Etah, AIR 1986 SC 315; Suraj Pal Sahu v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1986 SC 2177; Binod Singh v. District Magistrate, Dhanbad, AIR 1986 SC 2090; Smt Shashi Aggarwal v. State of U.P., AIR 1988 SC 596, and came to the conclusion that an order for detention can be passed against a person in custody and for that purpose, it is necessary that grounds of detention must show that (i) detaining authority was aware of the fact that detenu is already in detention; and (ii) there were compelling reasons justifying such detention despite the fact that detenu is already in detention. The expression "compelling reasons" in the context of making an order for detention of a person already in custody implies that there must be cogent material before detaining authority on the basis whereof it may be satisfied that (a) detenu is likely to be released from custody in near future, and (b) taking into account the nature of antecedent activities of detenu, it is likely that after his release from custody he would indulge in prejudicial activities and it is necessary to detain him in order to prevent him from engaging in such activities.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 104 - K J Shetty - Full Document

State Of Gujarat vs Adam Kasam Bhaya on 18 September, 1981

In this regard I am fortified by decisions rendered by the Supreme Court in State of Gujarat vs. Adam Kasam Bhaya (1981) 4 SCC 216; State of Punjab vs. Sukhpal Singh 7 WP(Crl) No. 141/2021 (1990) 1 SCC 35; Union of India vs. Arvind Shergill (2000) 7 SCC 601; Pebam Ningol Mikoi Devi vs. State of Manipura, (2010) 9 SCC; and Subramanian vs. State of T.N. (2012) 4 SCC 699.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 81 - B Islam - Full Document
1   2 3 Next