Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 22 (0.41 seconds)
Shaikh Niyaz Anwarbhai vs State Of Gujarat on 2 September, 2020 cites

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

26 It is not in dispute that the Supreme Court in categorical terms delineated the parameters on which order of detention at preexecution stage can be questioned in the case of Alka Subhash Gadia and Another (supra). In that case an order of detention was passed against the husband of the respondent No.1 under Section 3(1) of COFEPOSA. The order, however, could not be served on him as he was absconding. Hence a declaration was made that he fell within the category mentioned in Section 2(b) of the SAFEMA. Thereafter, a notice was issued under Section 6(1) of the SAFEMA to show cause as to why the properties mentioned in the schedule to the said notice should not be forfeited to the Central Government for reasons recorded in the accompaniment. A copy of the notice along with the schedule of the properties and the copy of the reasons for Page 2 of 17 Downloaded on : Fri Sep 04 00:17:50 IST 2020 C/SCA/10427/2020 ORDER forfeiture of property were also sent to the respondent No.1. The Respondent No.1, thereafter, filed a writ petition under Article 226 before the High Court challenging the detention order as well as the show cause notice. The High Court by its impugned decision held that the writ petition was maintainable for challenging the detention order even though the detenu was not served with the order and he had thus not surrendered to the authorities. The High Court further directed that the detention order, the grounds of detention, and the documents relied upon for passing the detention order be furnished to the detenu and that they should also be produced before the court. The High Court also directed the authorities to supply the said documents to the counsel for the respondent No.1. The Assistant Director of Enforcement filed an affidavit before the High Court stating that although they were willing to produce the order of detention and the grounds of detention for the perusal of the Court, yet they cannot furnish them to the respondent No.1, unless, as required by the Act, the detenu first submits to the impugned order. The High Court held that the officers were guilty of contempt of court and directed the matter to be listed to take appropriate action for contempt. It is at that stage that the special leave petitions, giving rise to the appeals, were filed before the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 570 - P B Sawant - Full Document

Subhash Muljimal Gandhi vs L.Himingliana on 26 August, 1994

In this connection, it may be profitable if we refer to a decision of this Court in Subhash Muljimal Gandhi v. L. Himingliana & Anr., (1994) 6 SCC 14. There, an order of detention was challenged by the detenu at preexecution stage. It was contended by the detenu that the contingencies noted in Alka Subhash Gadia were illustrative and not exhaustive. It was submitted that there might well be other contingencies where such order could be questioned at preexecution stage. In that case also, it was alleged that the detenu was harassed, humiliated and beaten by authorities and the case called for grant of relief before execution of order of detention.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 48 - M K Mukherjee - Full Document
1   2 3 Next