Search Results for "externment order vitiated"

Trending :

Bombay High Court Allows Appeals by Acquiring Body in Land Acquisition Compensat...
Bombay High Court Dismisses NHAI Appeals in Land Acquisition Compensation Disput...
Bombay High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Challenging Concurrent Findings in Sui...
Supreme Court Upholds Refusal to Eschew Proof Affidavit in Probate Proceedings. ...
Supreme Court Allows Agriculturists' Appeal for Enhanced Compensation; Condones ...

Search Results for "externment order vitiated"

95 result(s) found

Home Search Results

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 95 result(s)

High Court

Bombay High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging Preventive Detention Under MPDA Act for Dangerous Person. Detention Order Based on Past Criminal Activities and In-Camera Statements Upheld as Valid Under Section 3(2) of Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Dangerous Persons and Video Pirates Act, 1981.

21 Oct 2010

The petitioner, brother of the detenue Surendra @ Surya Daulat Desai, challenged a detention order dated 15th March 2010 issued by the Commissioner of...

High Court

Bombay High Court Quashes Detention Orders Under MPDA Act for Non-Application of Mind and Lack of Subjective Satisfaction. Preventive Detention Orders Set Aside as Detaining Authority Failed to Consider Petitioners' Custody Status and Relied on Unverified In-Camera Statements.

30 Aug 2005

The petitioners, Pravin Nivrutti Pagare, Sunil Mahadeo Khandagale, and Vijay Premnath Gosavi, were detained under Section 3(1) of the Maharashtra Prev...

High Court

Bombay High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Order Under MPDA Act for Lack of Compelling Necessity and Proximate Link. The court held that the detaining authority failed to consider alternative remedies like cancellation of bail and there was unexplained delay, vitiating the order.

23 Feb 2024

The petitioner, Aniket Balaji Suryawanshi, challenged an order dated 25.10.2023 passed by the District Magistrate, Hingoli, detaining him under Sectio...

High Court

Bombay High Court Examines Detention Order Under MPDA Act, 1981; Representations and Delay Issues Considered. Court Finds No Merit in Allegation of Non-Forwarding of Representation as Detenu's Son Voluntarily Took Back Copies, While Delay Explanation Was Noted.

5 May 2006

The petitioner-detenu challenged his detention order dated 22.06.2005 passed under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bo...

High Court

Bombay High Court Quashes MPDA Detention Order for Non-Application of Mind and Mechanical Confirmation by Advisory Board. Detenu's Right to Make Effective Representation Violated as Grounds of Detention Were Not Properly Considered.

19 Mar 2019

The petitioner, Shrinivas Kishor Sanga, challenged his detention order dated 30/10/2018 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Solapur, under Section 3...

High Court

Bombay High Court Quashes Detention Order in PASA Case for Non-Application of Mind — Failure to Consider Less Restrictive Alternatives and Inadequate Material Renders Preventive Detention Invalid. The court held that the detaining authority must consider whether the detenue can be dealt with under regular law before resorting to preventive detention under Section 3(2) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act, 1985.

28 Jul 2021

The petitioner, Rahul Jyoti Sahani, was detained under Section 3(2) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act, 1985 (as extended to Dadr...

High Court

Bombay High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Order for Non-Communication of Grounds in Known Language — Violation of Article 22(5) of Constitution and Section 8 of Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1981. The court held that the detaining authority must ensure grounds are communicated in a language known to the detenu to enable effective representation, and failure to do so renders the detention order invalid.

28 Aug 2012

The petitioner, Firoz Hyder Shaikh @ Kalya Firoz, was detained under a preventive detention order dated 5th September 2011 passed by the Commissioner ...

High Court

Bombay High Court Examines Legality of Preventive Detention Order Under MPDA Act, 1981 Citing Non-Application of Mind and Procedural Flaws. Detention Based on Stale Past Incidents and Improper Communication of Right to Representation Raises Concerns Under Article 22(5).

26 Mar 2019

The petitioner, a resident of Aurangabad, filed a criminal writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the preventive det...

High Court

High Court of Judicature at Bombay Considers Pre-Execution Challenge to Detention Orders Under COFEPOSA; Maintainability of Writ Petitions and Grounds for Interference are Limited to Five Exhaustive Grounds as per Gadia’s Case. Court Rejects Request to Allow Fresh Representation Under Section 11 When Prior Representation Already Rejected, Holding that It Cannot Direct Government to Review Its Decision.

5 Jan 2011

(1) Background: Three criminal writ petitions were filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of detention orders passed un...

High Court

High Court of Karnataka Quashes Preventive Detention Order for Non-Communication of Grounds in Language Known to Detenue — Violation of Article 22(5) of Constitution of India and Section 8 of Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1985. The court held that the detaining authority must ensure the detenue understands the grounds of detention to make an effective representation; failure to do so renders the detention illegal.

31 Aug 2023

The petitioner, Smt. Shrenika, wife of the detenue Sri. Huchappa @ Dhanaraj Kalebag, filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitut...

7 8 9 10

Full Name * Username * Mobile Number * Email Address * State/UT * City * Password * Confirm Password * Referral Code (Optional)