Detained - Judgment Search Results
Sonam Yongda (Ex-captain) Presently Detained in Hazaribagh Central Jai ...
Court: Supreme Court of India
Decided on: Jul-29-1986
Reported in: AIR1986SC1736,1986CriLJ1606,1986(2)SCALE123,(1986)3SCC594
Matched in: Parties Sonam Yongda (Ex-captain) Presently Detained in Hazaribagh Central Jail, Bihar Vs. State of Sikkim and ors.
Smt.Shanta Prakash Shewale Vs. the Principal Secretary (Appeals and Se ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-24-2012
her husband. She has asserted that she has reason to believe that her husband is likely to be detained. This inference is deduced on the basis of grounds of detention served on the co-detenu Ajit Bapu Satam,
Smt.Shanta Prakash Shewale Vs. the Principal Secretary (Appeals and Se ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-24-2012
her husband. She has asserted that she has reason to believe that her husband is likely to be detained. This inference is deduced on the basis of grounds of detention served on the co-detenu Ajit Bapu Satam,
18-section briefs on any result in this list
Sangeetha Kirti Patel Vs. R.A. Rajeev Principal Secretary (Appeals and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-08-2015
for short). By the said order the Respondent No.1 has directed that the said Kirti Vanabhai Patel be detained under the COFEPOSA Act, 1974 with a view to prevent him in future from abating the smuggling of
Shaikh Mohd. Rafiq Mohd. HussaIn Vs. Preventive Detention Secretary to ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-09-1990
Reported in: 1990CriLJ2422
Pendse, J.1. The Secretary (Preventive Detention) to the Government of Maharashtra, Home Department, and Detaining Authority passed order dated May, 9, 1989 in exercise of powers under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of
Rajkumar Kallu Sahu Detained in Baroda Prison Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-05-1999
Reported in: (1999)3GLR696
Matched in: Parties Rajkumar Kallu Sahu Detained in Baroda Prison Vs. State of Gujarat
Shri Sakerwala Zuzar Mohsinbhai Vs. the Principal Secretary (Appeals a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-26-2007
and consequently, not considered. Hence, the detention order is liable to be vitiated. The Petitioner came to be detained on and from 4.1.2006. His first statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act came to be recorded
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›
AI Brief (18 sections) + Semantic Search - 7 days free