Advanced Search Results

Prem Swarup Puri Vs. Delhi Administration and Union of India

Court : Delhi

Subject : Constitution

Acts : Extradition Act, 1962 - Sections 21; Constitution of India - Article 226

Reported in : ILR1980Delhi184

bases his claim on the mandate in Article one of the decree and section 21 of the Indian Extradition Act 1962 (the Act). The Union of India, on the other hand, contend that they are entitled to try him … On August 31, 1974, the Metropolitan Magistrate convicted the petitioner and sentenced him to six months. On November 26, 1974, he was released after serving sentence. He preferred an appeal against his conviction to the court of

Verhoeven, Marie-Emmanuelle Vs. Union of India Through Ministry of Ext ...

Court : Delhi

Subject : Right to Information

dated 24.02.2015 of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi under Section 34-B of the Extradition Act, 1962. Thereafter, accepting the extradition request dated 24.03.2015 made by the Republic of Chile, by order dated 18.05.2015 the … of Chile to seek extradition of the petitioner.(iv) The Embassy of Republic of Chile vide Note Verbale No. 26/2015 dated 24.02.2015 made a request to the Ministry of External Affairs, Union of India to take steps for

State of West Bengal Vs. Jugal Kishore More and anr.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Criminal

Acts : Fugitive Offenders Act, 1881; Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 120B, 121, 121A, 122, 123, 420, 467 and 471; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1898 - Sections 82 and 439; Extradition Act, 1962; Constitution of India - Article 227

Reported in : AIR1969SC1171; 1969CriLJ1559; (1969)1SCC440; [1969]3SCR320

of India was also without authority in the absence of a notified order Under Section 3 of the Extradition Act, 1962, and the High Court could not ignore the 'laws of the land, even to support a gesture of … Kong, endorsed the warrant and directed the Hong Kong Police, 'pursuant to Section 13 of Part II and Section 26 of Part IV of the Fugitive Offenders Act, 1881', to arrest More. The order recited :WHEREAS I have

Jugal Kishore More Vs. Chief Presidency Magistrate Calcutta and ors.

Court : Kolkata

Subject : Criminal

Acts : Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1898 - Sections 46, 75 to 86, 186 to 189, 403, 429, 439, 514 and 555; ;Constitution of India - Articles 21, 73, 227 and 394; ;Extradition Act, 1962 - Sections 2, 3(1), 19, 35 and 37; ;Fugitive Offenders Act, 1881 - Sections 13 and 26; ;General Clauses Act, 1897 - Section 3; ;Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 3, 4, 120B, 216, 420, 467 and 471

Reported in : AIR1968Cal220,1968CriLJ604,71CWN508

strongly contended by Mr. Dutt in the very fact that after the Supreme Court decision and beforeenactment of Extradition Act, 1962, instructions were given' as above. But his Lordship finds 'an incorrectitude' in instruction (b) just reproduced, which, to … the Central Magistracy, Hong Kong, to the Hong Kong Police 'Pursuant to Section 13 of Part II and Section 26 of Part of the Fugitive Offenders Act, 1881', the last two paragraphs of the endorsement reading:'And whereas Order

Jayendra Vishnu Thakur Vs. State of Maharahstra and anr.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Criminal

Acts : Evidence Act, 1871 - Sections 3, 33, 137 and 138; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 82, 83, 85, 90, 273, 299, 299(1), 342 and 465; Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 - Sections 11, 12, 14, 14(5), 21 and 25; Extradition Act, 1962; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 512; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 26 and 172; Constitution of India - Articles 21 and 32

Reported in : 2009(7)SCALE757; (2009)7SCC104(1); 2009AIRSCW3898;

this Court that `reason to believe', as provided in several provisions of the Act and as defined in Section 26 of the Indian Penal Code, on the part of the officer concerned is essentially a question of fact.48.

Verhoeven, Marie-Emmanuelle Vs. Union of India and Ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Right to Information

order is purported to have been issued in exercise of powers conferred by Section 4(1) of the Indian Extradition Act, 1962. Section 4(1) has no relevance to the context. What is relevant is Section 3(1) of the Act. The third … Act the British possession were substituted for the United Kingdom or England, as the case may require.” 10. Section 26 of the 1870 Act dealt with the interpretation of certain terms used therein and the term ‘British possession’

Abu Salem Abdul Qayoom Ansari Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Criminal

Acts : Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 - Sections 3(2)(i), 3(2)(ii), 3(3), 3(5), 5, 19; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 120B, 302, 307, 387, 382; Constitution of India - Article 32

Blast Case No. 1 of 1993, as violative of the Rule of Speciality and Section 21 of the Extradition Act, 1962; (d) issue a writ of Mandamus to release and discharge the writ petitioner by quashing all the proceedings … read with Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the TADA Act read with Sections 3, 7(a), 25(1A), 25(1AA), 26, 29, 35 of the Arms Act, 1959 read with Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Explosive

Yatindra Kumar Aggarwal and Another Vs. Union of India and Another

Court : Delhi

Subject : Education

that is whether the considerations which are required to be taken into account under Section 31(1)(d) of the Extradition Act, 1962 are to be examined by the Central Government prior to the issuance of an order of Magisterial Inquiry … the case of Mohammed Jafeer v. The Government of India: Manu/TN/8868/2006 (Habeas Corpus Petition No. 1243/2005 decided on 26.04.2006). Mr Amit Bansal submitted that the Central Government, in para 9 of its counter-affidavit, has clearly stated that

Himanshu Kulshrestha Vs. Union of India and Another

Court : Delhi

Subject : Education

that is whether the considerations which are required to be taken into account under Section 31(1)(d) of the Extradition Act, 1962 are to be examined by the Central Government prior to the issuance of an order of Magisterial Inquiry … the case of Mohammed Jafeer v. The Government of India: Manu/TN/8868/2006 (Habeas Corpus Petition No. 1243/2005 decided on 26.04.2006). Mr Amit Bansal submitted that the Central Government, in para 9 of its counter-affidavit, has clearly stated that

State of Nct of Delhi Vs. Abu Salem Abdul Qayoom Ansari

Court : Delhi

Subject : Land Acquisition

here since there was no Extradition Treaty between the two countries, by virtue of Section 21 of the Extradition Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’), a Notification, extending the applicability of the Act to the Republic of … permission of the Designated Court to withdraw the prosecution of the respondent/accused for the said offences. 7. On 26.2.2008, the Government of NCT of Delhi forwarded a proposal in this regard to the Director of Prosecution, so