Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 18 (0.29 seconds)
Sanjeev Gupta (In Jc) Through His Wife ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) on 23 April, 2002 cites

Powanammal vs State Of Tamil Nadu And Anr on 15 January, 1999

18. Coming to petitioner's grievance about non-supply of some material documents, it requires to be made clear that there is an obligation on the detaining authority to supply the relied upon documents only to the detenu to enable him to make an effective representation. Non-supply of such material documents vitiates the detention in the facts and circumstances of the case and no prejudice is required to be shown for this. The authority, however, is also required to supply other documents referred to in the ground of detention on demand but non-supply of these would not invalidate the detention unless the detenu shows the prejudice caused to him in making the representation. This position is repeatedly affirmed by the Supreme Court and lately in Powanammal v. State of Tamil Nadu I (1999) SLT 191 holding thus:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 352 - Full Document

Anand Parkash Saksena vs Union Of India & Ors on 14 December, 1967

2. Petitioner challenges his detention on several grounds. He alleges delay of 8 months and 16 days in passing the detention order which vitiated his detention. According to him, authorities had received information regarding his alleged fraudulent duty draw back claim on 29.7.2000 leading to investigation in which his last statement was recorded on 27.1.2001 but despite this they had failed to pass the detention order till as late as on 26.4.2001. Reliance in this regard is placed on the Supreme Court judgments in Anand Prakash v. Union of India and a judgment of this court in Lal Khimani v. Union of India 2001 (1) AD Delhi 246.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 26 - R S Bachawat - Full Document
1   2 Next