Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 18 (0.85 seconds)
Anant Raj Kanoria vs Union Of India & Ors on 9 January, 2026 cites

Satwant Singh Sawhney vs D. Ramarathnam, Assistant Passport ... on 10 April, 1967

8. However, there is no material placed before the Court which can ascertain the Petitioner's liability or criminal culpability at this juncture which could indicate that he is intending to abscond. Therefore, the mere apprehension of default cannot be a basis for opening an indefinite LOC against him, thereby restricting the movement of a citizen who has a right to travel abroad which is acknowledged to be a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, as observed in the landmark judgments of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India and Satwant Singh Sawhney v. D. Ramarathnam, Assistant Passport Officer.
Supreme Court of India Cites 30 - Cited by 188 - K S Rao - Full Document

Priya Parameshwaran Pillai vs Union Of India And Ors. on 12 March, 2015

20. The LOCs are also being issued at the instance of Investigating Agencies where apprehension is raised by the Investigating Agencies that the person who is alleged of committing an offence might escape the clutches of law by leaving the country. However, the law is also getting crystallized that merely because there are some revenue implications, the LOC cannot be opened against a person. A Single Bench of this Court in Priya Parameswaran Pillai v. Union of India, [2015 VII AD (Delhi) 10] has held that merely because there were some revenue implications due to notices issued by the Income Tax Authorities, the violations of tax laws are not demonstrative of the fact that the Petitioner therein had acted inimical to the economic interests of the country.
Delhi High Court Cites 37 - Cited by 7 - R Shakdher - Full Document
1   2 Next