Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 18 (2.47 seconds)
Sushanta Kumar Banik vs The State Of Tripura on 30 September, 2022 cites

Sk. Serajul vs State Of West Bengal on 9 September, 1974

17. A similar contention was raised in Suresh Mahato v. The District Magistrate, Burdwan, and Ors., (1975) 3 SCC 554, on the basis of the dictum laid down in two decisions of this Court, namely, SK. Serajul v. State of West Bengal, (1975) 2 SCC 78, and Sk. Nizamuddin (supra) contending that the delay of the arrest of the detenu in that case showed that the detaining authority was not really and genuinely satisfied as regards the necessity for detention of the detenu for otherwise he would have tried to secure the arrest of the detenu promptly and not left him free to carry on his nefarious activities. Bhagwati, J. (as the learned Chief Justice then was) while dealing with this submission, made the following observation:
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 70 - P N Bhagwati - Full Document

Shafiq Ahmad vs District Magistrate, Meerut & Ors on 6 September, 1989

19. Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. (as the learned Chief Justice then was) in Shafiq Ahmed v. District Magistrate, Meerut and Ors., (1989) 4 SCC 556, having regard to the fact that there was a delay of two and a half months in detaining the petitioner (detenu) therein, pursuant to the order of detention has concluded that "there was undue delay, delay not commensurate with the facts situation in that case and the conduct of the respondent authorities betrayed that there was no real and genuine apprehension that the detenu was likely to act in any manner prejudicial to public order. 14 The order, therefore is bad and must go". However, the learned Judge observed that "whether the delay was unreasonable depends on the facts and circumstances of each case.”
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 68 - S Mukharji - Full Document

Ashok Kumar vs Delhi Administration & Ors on 5 May, 1982

13. There is indeed a plethora of authorities explaining the purpose and the avowed object of preventive detention in express and explicit language. We think that all those decisions of this Court on this aspect need not be recapitulated and recited. But it would suffice to refer to the decision of this Court in Ashok Kumar 10 v. Delhi Administration and Ors., (1982) 2 SCC 403, wherein the following observation is made:
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 256 - A P Sen - Full Document
1   2 Next