Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.18 seconds)Shahabuddin Ahmad@Sameer And 4 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 4 February, 2020
This Court in Shahabuddin and others v. State of U.P. and others, 2000 (38) A.L.R. 44 issued a mandamus directing the State Authorities not to compel the licence holders to deposit the fire arm on the basis that elections are going to the be held in the near future. Similar direction was again issued in Mohd. Arif Khan and other v. State of U.P. and others, 2002 A.C.J. 586.
Ram Hit vs State Of U.P. And Others on 13 June, 2000
In Ram Hit v. State of U.P. and others, 2000 (40) ALR 281, the Court held that the authority cannot compel a citizen to deposit the fire arms unless there was a specific order by a competent authority under the Arms Act.
Fazlur Rahman Son Of Mohd. Usman, Afzal ... vs State Of U.P. Through Secretary ... on 8 August, 2005
In Israr Khan v. State of U.P., 1996 (27) ALR 198, the Court held that the weapon could only be deposited in accordance with law as contemplated under the Arms Act and that the weapon could not be deposited under an oral order of the Station House Officer.
Uma Kant Yadav vs State Of U.P. And Ors. on 23 April, 2004
In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court Uma Kant Yadav vs. State of U.P. and Others 2007 0 Supreme (AII)758, in which it was held that the competent authority has to pass an order under Section 21 of the Arms Act, 1959 for depositing the arms and the authority cannot compel the petitioners to deposit the firearm during panchayat elections.
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 21 in The Arms Act, 1959 [Entire Act]
Ram Narayan @ Pandhari Yadav vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 16 November, 2019
In Pandhari Yadav v. State of U.P. and others, 2004 ALR 2246, the Court held that the retention of the fire arms was essential to the preservation of the life and property of the licence holder.
1