Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 31 (0.39 seconds)

Additional Secretary To The Government ... vs Smt. Alka Subhash Gadia And Anr on 20 December, 1990

7. As we see it, the present case does not fall under any of the aforesaid five exceptions for the Court to interfere. It was contended that these exceptions are not exhaustive. We are unable to agree with this submission. Alka Subhash Page 34 of 38 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 07 20:32:39 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/5574/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/05/2024 undefined Gadia case, 1992 (Suppl.) (1) SCC 496 shows that it is only in these five types of instances that the Court may exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Art. 226 or Art. 32 at the preexecution stage. The petitioner had sought to contend that the order which was passed was vague, extraneous and on irrelevant grounds but there is no material for making such an averment for the simple reason that the order of detention and the grounds on which the said order is passed has not been placed on record inasmuch as the order has not yet been executed. The petitioner does not have a copy of the same, and therefore, it is not open to the petitioner to contend that the nonexistent order was passed on vague, extraneous or on irrelevant grounds."
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 570 - P B Sawant - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next