Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.86 seconds)Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 21 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 32 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 5 in The Goondas Act, 1923 [Entire Act]
A. K. Roy, Etc vs Union Of India And Anr on 28 December, 1981
5.However, Mr.R.Sankarasubbu, learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that Article 21 is repository of personal liberty. An order under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 has to conform to the mandate of Article 22 of the Constitution. As to how a law on preventive detention has to be construed came to be considered by the Supreme Court in A.K. Roy v. Union of India reported in (1982) 1 SCC 271 and in paragraph 74 it was observed as follows:
The Goondas Act, 1923
Deepak Bajaj vs State Of Maharashtra & Anr on 12 November, 2008
8.The decision in Alka Subhash Gadia (Smt)'s case (cited supra) came to be considered by the Supreme Court in Deepak Bajaj's case (cited supra), wherein the Supreme Court held that the ground under which a review can be made as set out in Alka Subhash Gadia (Smt)'s case is not exhaustive and it is only illustrative.
Additional Secretary To The Government ... vs Smt. Alka Subhash Gadia And Anr on 20 December, 1990
8.The decision in Alka Subhash Gadia (Smt)'s case (cited supra) came to be considered by the Supreme Court in Deepak Bajaj's case (cited supra), wherein the Supreme Court held that the ground under which a review can be made as set out in Alka Subhash Gadia (Smt)'s case is not exhaustive and it is only illustrative.
Rajinder Arora vs Union Of India And Ors on 10 March, 2006
9.Notwithstanding the decisions referred to above empowering this court from reviewing the detention order, in the present case, it is only at the stage of a proposal being sent by the third respondent. The ultimate satisfaction is that of the detaining authority, i.e., District Collector, Vellore. Unless and until he applies his mind with all relevant facts and materials placed before him and passes an order, the court cannot at this stage forestall any decision being taken by the second respondent on the basis of unsubstantiated averments made by the petitioner. It is only when the detaining authority is satisfied that an order can be made under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and unless such an order is produced, the question of going into the validity of the detention order will not arise.
1