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 Preventive Detention Order Under MPDA Act for Failure to Consider Less Restrictive Alternatives. Detenu's Right to Liberty Upheld as Detaining Authority Did Not Apply Mind to Necessity of Detention Over Criminal Prosecution.

The petitioner, Omkar Rajendra Bhosle, challenged a preventive detention order dated 3rd March 2025 issued by the Commissioner of Police, Pune City, u...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Quashes Detention Order Under MPDA Act Due to Unexplained Delay. Preventive detention order set aside as 7 months and 8 days delay between crimes and detention order was not satisfactorily explained, violating constitutional safeguards.

The petitioner, Kiran Ramjan Machare, challenged a detention order dated 5 September 2023 issued by the Commissioner of Police, Pimpari-Chinchwad, Pun...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Quashes Detention Order Under MPDA Act Due to Non-Application of Mind and Reliance on Stale Instances. Detaining Authority Failed to Consider Acquittals in Previous Cases, Rendering Subjective Satisfaction Invalid.

The petitioner, Amol alias Guddu s/o Sevakar Khorgade, challenged a detention order dated 08/11/2022 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Nagpur unde...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Allows Writ Petition and Quashes Preventive Detention Order Under MPDA Act for Non-Application of Mind. Detenu in Judicial Custody Without Bail Application — Detaining Authority Failed to Disclose Compelling Reasons for Detention.

The petitioner, Pravin @ Purshottam Shrinivas Mahajan, challenged an order of preventive detention dated 29 April 2014 passed by the Commissioner of P...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Quashes Detention Order Under MPDA Act for Non-Application of Mind and Delay in Disposal of Representation. Preventive Detention Order Set Aside as Detenu's Fundamental Right Under Article 22(5) Was Violated Due to Unexplained Delay in Considering Representation.

The petitioner, mother of the detenu Manoj Sansare, challenged the detention order dated 22nd September 2005 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Bri...