Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.40 seconds)Section 3 in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
T.A. Abdul Rahman vs State Of Kerala And Ors on 23 August, 1989
In Pradeep Nilkanth Paturkar v. S. Ramamurthi and Ors., the test laid down are similar in case of A. Abdul Rahman v. State of Kerala and Ors., and further held that when there is undue and long delay between the prejudicial activities and the passing of detention order, the court has to scrutinise whether the detaining authority has satisfactorily examined such a delay and afforded a tenable and reasonable explanation as to why such a delay has occasioned. Again in the same judgment it is observed in paragraph 12 that it all depends on the nature of the acts relied on, grave and determined or less serious and corrigible, on the length of the gap, short or long, on the reason of the delay in taking preventive action, like information or participation being available only in the course of an investigation, and then the Court observed each case has to be decided in the facts and circumstances appearing in that particular case. In view of the two judgments of the Supreme Court, referred above, we do not feel it necessary to refer to the other judgments because the criteria is almost an identical.
Pradeep Nikanth Paturkar vs S. Ramamurthi And Others on 24 March, 1992
In Pradeep Nilkanth Paturkar v. S. Ramamurthi and Ors., the test laid down are similar in case of A. Abdul Rahman v. State of Kerala and Ors., and further held that when there is undue and long delay between the prejudicial activities and the passing of detention order, the court has to scrutinise whether the detaining authority has satisfactorily examined such a delay and afforded a tenable and reasonable explanation as to why such a delay has occasioned. Again in the same judgment it is observed in paragraph 12 that it all depends on the nature of the acts relied on, grave and determined or less serious and corrigible, on the length of the gap, short or long, on the reason of the delay in taking preventive action, like information or participation being available only in the course of an investigation, and then the Court observed each case has to be decided in the facts and circumstances appearing in that particular case. In view of the two judgments of the Supreme Court, referred above, we do not feel it necessary to refer to the other judgments because the criteria is almost an identical.
Rafiq Abdul Karim Merchant vs Shri Rajendra Singh, Secretary To ... on 15 January, 1998
Therefore following the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, referred to above in Rafiq Abdul Karim's case, we hold there is no delay and considering that this is a case under COFEPOSA where as held by the Division bench wider margin has to be given to the authorities in cases under COFEPOSA and we also hold that the propensity and potentiality of the detenu was such that the mere delay in issuing detention order cannot frustrate. Ground of delay raised by the detenu is therefore required to be rejected.
The Customs Act, 1962
Krishna Murari Aggarwala vs The Union Of India & Ors on 15 July, 1975
22. The next ground that was urged by Mr. Bagve was that grounds of dete (SIC) detention are not made simultaneously and therefore detention order stands vitiated. This ground was raised by Mr. Bagve on the basis of the affidavit in reply. He relied upon judgment Krishna Murari Aggarwala v. The Union of India and Ors. In that case the Supreme Court appears to be concerned with the interpretation of Section 3(1) of Maintenanced of Internal Security Act. Paragraph 7 of the judgment was relied upon by Mr. Bagve, and we are reproducing the said para:
The National Security Act, 1980
Section 5A in The Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 [Entire Act]
The Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974
1