Advanced Search Results

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 … 2007 against the order dated 16.04.2007 by the same Designated Court, framing charges against him under Sections 120B, 302, 307, 387, 382 IPC and under Sections 3(2)(i), 3(2)(ii), 3(3), 3(5) and 5 of the TADA Act. 4)

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 … (iii) was RC. 4/EW/68. The French Government granted extradition of the petitioner by an extradition decree dated July 30, 1971 only in respect of the last offence i.e. of 1967. For the other two offences extradition was

Kanwarjeet Singh Batth vs Union of India

Court : Delhi

Subject : Criminal

by Amritsar Police, the Petitioner was sent to judicial custody on 22.10.2014.8. As per Section 34(b)(2) of the Extradition Act, 1962 any fugitivearrested under sub-section (1), is entitled to be discharged if no request for his Surrender or Return … of murder of Victim Opinder Pal Singh, by the FC.33. Moreover, the punishment for the offence under Section 302 IPC is death, for which Extradition is not allowed.34. It is submitted that Ex.CW-1/3, which is the case

Kamlesh Babulal Aggarwal Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court : Delhi

Subject : Criminal

Acts : Extradition Act, 1962 - Sections 5, 7, 7(3), 7(4), 8, 10 and 17; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 228

Reported in : 2008(104)DRJ78

the order dated 30.10.2002 of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi (ACMM) under Section 7 of the Extradition Act, 1962 (hereinafter called as the Act). The ACMM held that there existed a prima facie case in support of

Omesh Chander Kashyap vs.union of India

Court : Delhi

Subject : Land Acquisition

Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate vide order dated 31.03.2015, after a full fledged enquiry under Section 7 of the Extradition Act, 1962 (hereinafter called as „Act‟) recommended for the extradition of the petitioner to Canada, the requesting State. The W.P(Crl.) … recommended for the extradition of the petitioner to Canada, the requesting State. The W.P(Crl.) 2899/2015 Page 1 of 30 Government of India through the Ministry of External Affairs, CPV Division (Externment Section), vide order dated 04.12.2015 communicated

Nina Rajan Pillai and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court : Delhi

Subject : Criminal

Acts : Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952 - Section 3; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 409, 420, 302, 397, 467, 468; Extradition Act - Section 6; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 317(1), 321

formal request received from the Republic of Singapore for extradition of Rajan Pillai under Section 4 of the Extradition Act, 1962, the Government of India appointed Mr. M.L. Mehta (as he then was), Metropolitan Magistrate-cum-Commercial Civil Judge, Delhi as … was running high fever and could not sleep at night. After examining Rajan Pillai, Dr. Hira Lal examined 30 to 40 other inmates at the mulahiza. He also examined 100 other inmates as OPD patients and completed

Puneet vs.u O I

Court : Delhi

Subject : Land Acquisition

ASHUTOSH KUMAR JUDGMENT ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J1 The petitioner, who is facing inquiry under Section 7 of the Indian Extradition Act, 1962 (hereinafter called as „Act‟) has challenged the order bearing No.T-413/48/2009 dated 08.06.2000 passed by the Ministry of External … order dated 08.06.2010, the arrangement of extradition with Australia which has been published vide notification No.G.S.R. 1381 dated 30.01.1971 (gazette of India extraordinary) does not include the offence of causing death by negligence as provided under Section

Ram K. Mahbubani Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court : Delhi

Subject : Criminal

Acts : Indian Extradition Act, 1962 - Sections 2, 3, 3(3), 4 to 11, 5, 6, 12 to 18, 24, 34, 34B and 1343; Extradition Act, 1870; Fugitive Offenders Act, 1881; Extradition Act, 1903; Bare Act; Extradition (Amendment) Act, 1993 - Sections 8; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 228; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 415, 417 and 420; Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908

Reported in : 153(2008)DLT471; 2008(106)DRJ906

issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus securing the release of the Petitioner under Section 24 of the Extradition Act, 1962 ('Extradition Act' for short); secondly, for quashing of the Orders of the learned ACMM dated 31.5.2007 and 28.7.2007 … Jersey which was sworn before a United States Magistrate Judge of the District of New Jersey, on August 30, 2006 and which is offered in support of the request for the extradition of the said Fugitive Criminal.(vii)

Christian Michel James vs Union of India and Ors.

Court : Delhi

Subject : Right to Information

sections into the chargesheet filed against a fugitive Extradited from UAE, Ultra virus of Section 21 of the Extradition Act 1962.Digitally Signed WP(Crl) 3868/2025 Page 1 of 19b) Issue appropriate Writ order direction declaring that non application of the … is alleged that Mr. S.P. Tyagi was appointed as Chief of AirStaff (hereinafter referred to as „CAS‟) on 30.10.2004 and in the month of March, 2005, he approved the request to reduce the ceiling limit of VVIP

A. T. Mydeen Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Customs Department

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Land Acquisition

expressly or the same must be capable of being inferred by necessary implication. There are statutes like the Extradition Act, 1962 which excludes taking of evidence viz-a-viz opinion. 8 (2009) 7 SCC10419 (See - Sarabjit Rick Singh v. Union … character.29. In this regard, another instance of requirement of joint trial for admissibility of confession as provided under section 30 of Evidence Act, 1872 may be noted. According to which when more persons than one are being tried