Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 28 (0.37 seconds)
Sumit S/O. Ramkrishna Maraskolhe vs Deputy Commissioner Of Police Zone -1, ... on 5 February, 2018 cites

Pappu Alias Akhilesh Shivshankar ... vs State Of Maharashtra, Through ... on 21 December, 2016

181. He has also invited our attention to the amendment effected in Section 56 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 in the year 1981, conferring jurisdiction upon the externing authority to pass an order of externment beyond the local limits of its jurisdiction. According to him, the decision of the Apex Court in ::: Uploaded on - 05/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/02/2018 02:15:15 ::: 6 wp1002.17.odt Pandharinath Rangnekar's case, cited supra, was rendered on unamended provision of Section 56 of the Bombay Police Act, and though the Division Bench of this Court in Pappu @ Akhilesh Mishra's case, cited supra, referred to the amended portion of the said provision, it failed to consider the overriding effect given to the amended provision, which commences from a non obstante clause of "notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or any other law for the time being in force". He submits that sufficient details of in-camera statements are given in the show cause notice and the order impugned, and there is no failure to provide an effective opportunity to make a representation against the proposed externment, to the petitioner.
Bombay High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 3 - B P Dharmadhikari - Full Document

Balu Shivling Dombe vs The Divisional Magistrate, Pandharpur ... on 26 September, 1968

wp1002.17.odt "16. An excessive order can undoubtedly be struck down because no greater restraint on personal liberty can be permitted than is reasonable in the circumstances of the case. The decision of the Bombay High Court in Balu Shivling Dombe v. The Divisional Magistrate, Pandharpur (supra), is an instance in point where an externment order was set aside on the ground that it was far wider than was justified by the exigencies of the case. The activities of the externee therein were confined to the city of Pandharpur and yet the externment order covered an area as extensive as districts of Sholapur, Satara and Poona. These areas are far widely removed from the locality in which the externee had committed but two supposedly illegal acts. The exercise of the power was therefore arbitrary and excessive, the order having been passed without reference to the purpose of the externment."
Bombay High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 59 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next