Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: assam preventive detention act 1980 section 8 grounds of order of detention to be disclosed to person affected by the order Court: mumbai Page 1 of about 42 results (0.265 seconds)

Shivhankarlal Gupta and anr. Vs. C.T.A. Pillai and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : AIR1976Bom165

..... bhabha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, was that unless it was decided whether the matter under the preventive detention laws is civil or criminal in nature, it would affect the right of appeal of the parties. ..... these two petitions are filed on behalf of the detenus who have been detained under section 3(a) of the conservation of foreign exchange and prevention of smuggling activities act 1974 as amended and both have been detained by the order of the central government. ..... so far as the territorial jurisdiction of the high court in the matter of issuance of writs is concerned, it obviously runs throughout the state itself, but after the constitution amendment of 1963 the writs of this court now can run even beyond the territorial jurisdiction for the purpose of issuing directions and orders and writs to any government or authority or person outside the territorial limits of this state provided the cause of action for the writ wholly or in part arises within the jurisdiction of this court.23. ..... this is on the ground that section 491 of the old code was still on the statute book. ..... incidentally, however, we will indicate what we think of applications where the petitioners are detained under the preventive detention laws and seek a relief on various grounds. ..... this was upheld and the appeal came to be rejected on that technical ground. .....

Mahesh V. Amesur Vs. The State of Maharashtra, through the Additional ...

Court : Mumbai

..... 3150 of 2015 under article 226 of the constitution of india seeks a writ of habeas corpus in respect of one jeetu shankarlal chhapru ( chhapru ), the subject of an order of preventive detention dated 9th july 2015 issued by the 2nd respondent, the detaining authority, under section 3(1)(i) the conservation of foreign exchange and prevention of smuggling activities act, 1974 ( cofeposa ). ..... union of india and ors, (2012) 7 scc 499).under our constitutional jurisprudence, articles 21 and 22 together constitute an integrated code in matters relating to personal liberty and preventive detention. ..... in paragraph 8 of his affidavit in reply to the petitions, the 2nd respondent, the detaining authority, answers the grounds of delay thus: after the scrutiny of the proposal, i as the detaining authority issued the detention order on 09.07.2015, which is after a period of only 3 months and 9 days from the receipt of the proposal. ..... the question whether the prejudicial activities of a person necessitating to pass an order of detention is proximate to the time when the order is made or the live-link between the prejudicial activities and the purpose of detention is snapped depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. ..... we must note that in the meanwhile, on 24th december 2012, 2nd january 2013 and on 11th january 2012 statements under section 108 of the said act of 1962 of some other persons were recorded. .....

In Re: Maganlal Jivabhai Patel

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : AIR1951Bom33; (1951)53BOMLR127; ILR1951Bom546

..... section 97 bombay industrial relations act speaks of certain conditions which would make a strike illegal & if a detaining authority thinks that one or the other of those conditions exists & the strike which is incited to be resorted to is illegal on that score, our view is that it is open to him to take action under the preventive detention act against the person concerned that being so, in our view, ground no. ..... pleader has pointed out & pointed out rightly that when an order is made under the preventive detention act, the order continues to be in force until it is cancelled, & as a matter of fact even apart from any specific section of the preventive detention act, if an order is lawfully made, it must remain in force until it is revoked by a proper authority. ..... the words 'grounds on which the order has been made' are to be considered in context of the constitution & the preventive detention act. ..... he knows what facts he has considered it against public interest to disclose; for instance, it is he who knows whether, in his opinion, it is against public interest to mention in the grounds of detention the time, place, manner, method & nature of activities, person or persons, class of person or persons affected by those activities, etc. ..... 's arrest), the order passed by him on 29-3-1980, could not be acted upon on june 14. .....

Smt. Meena Jayendra Thakur Vs. the Union of India and Others

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : 1995CriLJ2533

..... article 22(5), enshrined in the constitution provides that when any person is detained in pursuance of an order made under any law providing for preventive detention, the authority making the order shall, as soon as may be, communicate to such person the grounds on which the order has been made and shall afford him the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order. ..... customs waters' as having the same meaning as in clause 298 of section 2 of the customs act, 1962 (as substituted for certain words by act 25 of 1978) which defines, indian customs waters as waters extending into sea up to the limit of contiguous zone of india under section 5 of the territorial waters, continental shelf, exclusive economic zone and other maritime zones act, 1976 (in short 'territorial waters act of 1976') and includes any bay, gulf, harbour, creek or tidal river, section 3 of the territorial waters act states that the sovereignty of india extends ..... according to him the order of detention in english states that the detention order has been passed to prevent the detenu from indulging in smuggling activities, while the grounds furnished to him in tamil discloses that the detention order has been passed with a view to prevent him from transporting contraband goods. ..... hence non-placement of the same has not affected the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority and non furnishing of the same has not affected the right of the detenu to make an effective representation. .....

Rajendra Mansukhlal Shah Vs. Commissioner of Police, Greater Bombay an ...

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : 1988(2)BomCR707

..... 3(1) of the preventive detention act under which the initial order of detention is made is worded differently in this respect and it merely empowers the central government or the state government, as the case may be, to make order, under the circumstances specified in the section directing that a person be detained; and nothing is said about the period for which such detention should be directed. ..... there is no material difference in the scheme of the preventive detention and the scheme of prevention of black marketing and maintenance of supplies of essential commodities act, 1980, with which we are concerned, in so far as the question that is being canvassed before us. ..... then the government is enjoined within a period of three weeks from the date of detention under the act to place before the advisory board the grounds on which the order has been made and the representation, if any, made by the person affected by the order. ..... 3 as noted in the various sub-sections both under the national security act, 1980, and the maharashtra prevention of dangerous activities of slumlords, bootleggers and drug offenders act, 1981, is the same. ..... with these amendments it can be said that the scheme of the preventive detention act as amended is in pari materia with the scheme of the aforesaid act of 1980.11. .....

Chintamani Purushottam Neurgaonkar Vs. Postmaster-general, Central Cir ...

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : (1963)ILLJ459Bom; 1963MhLJ15

..... it has been held in this court that if action under the preventive detention act is taken founded on grounds which are altogether extraneous to the provisions of the statute, then the whole order is bad and cannot be sustained. ..... but the allegations which have been annexed to the petitions in either of these two cases do not at all disclose any subversive activity either on the part of the petitioner or on the part of the institution, association with which is attributed to the petitioners. ..... prior to this personal hearing respondent 1 had passed an order on 3 june, 1961 in exercise of the powers under rule 5 of the central civil service (safeguarding of national security) rules, putting the petitioner chintamani under suspension with effect from 6 june, 1961. ..... in that case action was taken by the commissioner of income-tax against one of his employees, on the allegation that he was a member of the communist party, that he attended a private meeting of the party, that he associated with two named persons who were communists and that he was actually engaged in communist activities at sagar. ..... one could well understand an association with persons having known antecedents, indulging in violence or being wedded to the doctrine of violent activities or agitation; and if that be the case, it is possible that allegations to that effect may be well founded. ..... you are further asked to state whether you wish to be heard in person before orders are passed on your case.' 4. .....

Maya Ajit Satam Vs. the State of Maharashtra Through the Secretary to ...

Court : Mumbai

..... after extracting the dictum in the said decision, in paragraph 9, in hemlata'scase, the apex court proceeded to hold that the rule laid down is that the prosecution or the absence of it is not an absolute bar to an order of preventive detention; the authority may prosecute the offender for an isolated act or acts of an offence for violation of any criminal law, but if it is satisfied that the offender has a tendency to go on violating such laws, then there will be no bar for the state to detain him under a preventive detention act in order to disable him to repeat such offences. ..... the plain language of section 8 of the cofeposa act is suggestive of making a representation against the preventive detention order to the state government on the basis of the grounds of detention communicated to the detenu. ..... every person whose interests are adversely affected as a result of the proceedings which have a serious import, is entitled to be heard in those proceedings and be assisted by a friend. ..... that material disclosed his stand that he was not involved in any criminal activities. ..... union of india, 1980 cri. l.j. .....

Dr. Hannan Gulam HussaIn Chaugule Vs. State of Goa and Another

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : 1989(2)BomCR303; (1989)91BOMLR669; 1990CriLJ1550

..... while holding that under section 3 of the national security act, nothing precludes the authority from making an order of detention against a person while he is in custody or in jail, it is observed that the validity of the order of detention has to be judged in every individual case on its own facts and in that as to whether material apparently disclosed to the detaining authority that a person against whom an order of preventive detention is being made is already under custody and yet for compelling reasons his preventive detention is necessary. ..... (i) now that the impugned order of detention made by the detaining authority is dehors the application of mind as nowhere in the grounds of detention awareness of the fact that the detenu is in judicial custody is found nor the grounds of detention considered as to whether despite the fact that the detenu was in judicial custody there were any reasons much less compelling reasons to clamp down preventive detention when detenu was already effectively prevented from indulging in prejudicial activities of abetting the smuggling of goods. ..... the order of detention was made under the national security act 1980 on an apprehension that in case the detenu was released on bail he would again carry on with his criminal activities in the area. .....

Abdul Razak Ibrahim Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : (1998)100BOMLR45

..... the grounds of detention at best show that the petitioner was dealing in smuggled goods whereas in the order of detention it is stated that the detention of the petitioner is necessary with a view to preventing him from smuggling of goods and this inconsistency has fatally affected the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority and, therefore, the detention order is liable to ..... in cases of mere delay in making of an order of detention under a law like the conservation of foreign exchange and prevention of smuggling activities act, 1974 enacted for the purpose of dealing effectively with persons engaged in smuggling and foreign exchange racketeering who, owing to their large resources and influence have been posing a serious threat to the economy and thereby to the security of the nation, the courts should not merely on account of delay in making of an order of detention assume that such delay, is not satisfactorily explained, ..... this petition under article 226 of the constitution of india, the petitioner seeks to challenge the order of detention dated 15th january, 1997 passed by the secretary to government of maharashtra, home department (preventive detention) under section 3(1) of the conservation of foreign exchange and prevention of smuggling activities act, 1974 ('act' for short) with a view of preventing the petitioner from smuggling goods in future ..... it is disclosed in the grounds of detention that the petitioner used to supply foreign currencies to persons and was .....

Mohandas (Sic) Khemani Vs. the State of Maharashtra Through the Addl. ...

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : 2003(2)ALD(Cri)59; 2003BomCR(Cri)937

..... bagve is that there is no admission as such given by the detenu in his statement under section 108 'as per ground (x) or the petition' about having indulged in the act of smuggling in the past also and therefore the same could not have been made the basis for passing the detention order as is found in para 3 of the detention order, wherein the detaining authority has stated' i am also aware that you have admitted that you have been engaged in the act or smuggling in the past also'. mr. ..... respect to any person (including a foreigner) that wit a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to- (i) the defence of india, the relations of india with foreign powers, or the security of india, or(ii) the security of the state or the maintenance of public order, or(iii) the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community, or (b) if satisfied with respect to any foreigner that with a view to regulating this continued presence in india or with a view to making arrangements for his expulsion from india; it is necessary to do so, make an order directing that such person be detained. ..... the payment on both the counts in foreign exchange which was a part of the transaction was never disclosed by the detenu and this has definitely affected conservation of foreign exchange.11. .....