Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.21 seconds)
M.Parvathy Pillai vs The Union Of India on 29 July, 2021 cites

Sree Latha W/O. Sakthikumar vs The Secretary To Government, Public ... on 21 September, 2007

“10.Now, coming back to the points raised by the petitioner, the scope of the Section 3(2)(e) and 3(2)(g) of the Foreigners Act, came up for consideration before the Full Bench of this Court in Sree Latha Vs. Secretary to Government, Public (SC) Department, Government of Tamil Nadu and others reported in (2007) 2 MLJ (CRL.) 1320, wherein, the Hon'ble Full Bench considered the following decisions.
Madras High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 8 - P K Misra - Full Document

Yogeswari vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 10 April, 2003

690 (2), it has been held that the order regarding confinement in the Special Camp would not amount to an order of preventive detention, whereas, in the decision in Yogeswari Vs, State of Tamil Nadu reported in (2003) 1 LW (CRL.) 352, it has been held that such an order will only amount to confinement. The Hon'ble Full Bench, as a result held that an order directing a person to stay in a Special Camp with restriction cannot https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 7/12 W.P.(MD)No.9898 of 2021 be construed as a detention or confinement as envisaged under Section 3(2)(g) of the Foreigners Act. In Crl.A.No.651 of 2012, dated 26.11.2013, it is also held that opportunity of hearing can be given only in the event of expulsion and therefore, the grievance of the petitioner that her husband was not given any opportunity before passing the order is not also available to the petitioner. IT has also been held that the authorities have ample powers to impose orders restricting movements.”
Madras High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 12 - Full Document
1   2 Next