Search Results for "MPDA Act, 1981"

248 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 248 result(s)

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Quashes Detention Order in MPDA Case Due to Non-Application of Mind. Court holds that the detaining authority failed to consider the detenue's bail status and the availability of alternative remedies under ordinary law, rendering the detention order invalid.

The petitioner, Ram Raju @ Jatalya Umap, challenged a preventive detention order passed by the Commissioner of Police, Pune, under Section 3(2) of the...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Quashes Detention Order Under MPDA Act Due to Non-Consideration of Representation. Failure to Consider Detenu's Representation Before Confirmation Violates Article 22(5) of the Constitution.

The petitioner, Wasim @ Mukri A.Salar, was detained under Section 3(1) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Order Under MPDA Act for Non-Translation of Vital Documents. Failure to Provide Marathi Translation of English Documents Violates Detenu's Right to Make Effective Representation Under Article 22(5) of Constitution.

The petitioner, Vicky @ Munna Mahesh Shinde, challenged a preventive detention order dated 15 October 2019 passed by the District Magistrate, Ahmednag...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Quashes Detention Order Under MPDA Act for Failure to Consider Less Restrictive Measures. Preventive Detention Order Set Aside as Detaining Authority Did Not Consider Whether Bail Conditions Could Adequately Prevent Petitioner's Dangerous Activities.

The petitioner, Deepak Suryawanshi, challenged a preventive detention order dated 11 July 2016 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Pune, under Secti...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Quashes Detention Order Under MPDA Act Due to Unreasonable Delay in Considering Representation. Unexplained Delay of 25 Days in Deciding Representation Renders Detention Illegal Under Article 22(5) of Constitution.

The petitioner, Mr. Rizwan @ Tippu Sattar Pathan, challenged an order of detention dated 5th May 2014 passed under Section 3(2) of the Maharashtra Pre...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Quashes Detention Order Under MPDA Act Due to Non-Supply of Legible Documents and Inadequate Translation. Detenu's Right to Make Effective Representation Under Article 22(5) of Constitution Violated.

The petitioner, Rushikesh Tanaji Bhoite, son of the detenu Tanaji Keshavrao Bhoite, challenged the detention order dated 10.1.2011 passed by the Distr...