Search Results for "detention order challenge"

636 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 636 result(s)

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

High Court of Karnataka Quashes Detention Order in Habeas Corpus Petition for Non-Compliance with Procedural Safeguards Under Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1985. Failure to Communicate Grounds of Detention in Language Known to Detenue Renders Detention Unlawful.

The petitioner, Dil Shad, wife of Huseen Kabeer, filed a habeas corpus petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging th...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Quashes MPDA Detention Order for Lack of Proximate Link Between In-Custody Offences and Breach of Public Order. Detenu's Criminal Activities While in Custody Cannot Form Basis for Preventive Detention Under Section 3(2) of MPDA Act, 1981.

The petitioner, father of the detenu Pruthviraj Vilas Aawale, challenged the detention order dated 16 December 2022 passed by the District Magistrate,...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Quashes Detention Order Under MPDA Act for Non-Application of Mind and Lack of Material to Show Public Order Threat. Theft of sand and IPC offences held to be law and order issues, not public order.

The petitioner, Narayan Radhakishan Bhusari, challenged his preventive detention under Section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Orders in Red Sanders Smuggling Case — Failure to Consider Less Restrictive Alternatives. Detention under Section 3(1) of COFEPOSA set aside as detaining authority did not consider whether bail conditions or other measures would suffice.

The Bombay High Court allowed two habeas corpus petitions challenging preventive detention orders dated 21 February 2013 issued under Section 3(1) of ...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Order Under MPDA Act Due to Discrepancy in Dates. Discrepancy between date of detention order (02/02/2012) and grounds of detention (03/02/2012) shows subjective satisfaction recorded after order, vitiating detention.

The petitioner, Iqbal Sikandar Pathan, 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 Prevention of Black Marketing Act Due to Non-Application of Mind and Lack of Subjective Satisfaction. Court also directs inquiry into custodial violence allegations and awards compensation of Rs. 5,00,000 for violation of fundamental rights.

The petitioner, Bhaurao s/o Punjabrao Gawande, a businessman dealing in transportation of petroleum products, challenged his detention order dated 27....

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Quashes Detention Order Under COFEPOSA Due to Unexplained Delay Snapping Live Link. Preventive Detention Order Under Section 3(1) of COFEPOSA Act, 1974 Set Aside as Delay Between Last Smuggling Activity and Order Was Unexplained.

The petitioner, a friend of the detenu Joshy Mathew, challenged the detention order dated 3rd May 2004 issued under Section 3(1) of the Conservation o...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Quashes Detention Order Under COFEPOSA Due to Unexplained Delay in Execution and Consideration of Representation. Delay of Over Five Months in Executing Detention Order and Three Months in Considering Representation Violates Article 22(5) of Constitution and Section 3(1) of COFEPOSA Act.

The petitioner, a friend of the detenu Mohd. Kunhi Kallattra, challenged a detention order dated 28.2.2002 issued by the Secretary (Preventive Detenti...