Search Results for "dangerous activities"

759 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 759 result(s)

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Order Due to Inordinate Delay in Deciding Representation. Delay of 27 Days in Deciding Representation Violates Article 22(5) of Constitution of India, Rendering Detention Order Invalid.

The petitioner, Vijay Subhash Kore, was detained under Section 3(1) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, D...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Quashes Detention Order Under MPDA Act Due to Unexplained Delay in Considering Representation. Preventive Detention Order Set Aside as State Failed to Explain Delay of Over 100 Days in Disposing Detenu's Representation, Violating Article 22(5) of Constitution.

The petitioner, Devendra Ramlal Bidlan, was detained under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offender...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Upholds Detention Under MPDA Act — In-Camera Statements Verified by Authorized Officer Sufficient. Detention order under Section 3(2) of MPDA Act upheld as statements of confidential witnesses were verified by Assistant Commissioner of Police and found genuine.

The petitioner, Rohit @ Karan s/o Purshottam Naukariya, was detained by an order dated 22/12/2021 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Nagpur City (r...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Quashes Detention Order Under MPDA Act Due to Inordinate Delay in Considering Representation. Preventive Detention Order Set Aside as Representation Remained Unattended for Over Three Months, Violating Constitutional Safeguard Under Article 22(5).

The petitioner, Premchand @ Babu Punjabi @ Tatu Manohar Dhakani, was detained under Section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Quashes Detention Order Under MPDA Act Due to Unexplained Delay in Disposal of Representation. Right to Make Representation Under Article 22(5) of Constitution Infringed by Delayed Consideration of Detenue's Representation.

The petitioner, sister of the detenue Illiyas Gulab Shaikh, filed a writ petition challenging the detention order dated 22.06.2020 passed by the Commi...

© 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 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...