Created by Fuzzy Cloud | Our 2nd AI-Powered Solution
7 judgments · newest first · showing 1–7
The appellant, a deliveryman, complained that gold bars received in exchange for gold chains were counterfeit, leading the police to freeze the accused's bank accounts. The police reported the seizure to the jurisdictional magistrate only after a delay, and the Madras High Court ordered de‑freezing …
The appellant, Pramod Singla, was detained under the COFEPOSA Act for alleged involvement in a gold smuggling syndicate and filed representations to the detaining authority, the Central Government, and the Advisory Board. The Court examined whether there was a conflict between the Pankaj Kumar and …
The appellant, a convicted history‑sheeter, was first detained under the Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981 on 5 September 2016. That order was revoked on 17 September 2016, and a second detention order was issued on 21 September 2016 on the same grounds that existed before the revocation. The …
The Supreme Court examined whether an officer specially empowered under the COFEPOSA Act or the PIT NDPS Act to make a preventive detention order is required to consider the detainee's representation against that order. It held that the officer who makes the order is the detaining authority and must …
Mrs. T. Devaki, wife of R. Thamaraikani, challenged a detention order dated 15‑08‑1989 issued under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1982. The order, passed by the Collector and District Magistrate, alleged that Thamaraikani’s assault on a minister at a public seminar …
The petition challenged a detention order dated 23 May 1988 issued by the Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad under Section 3(2) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti‑Social Activities Act, 1985 against Abdul Latif Abdul Wahab Sheikh, who was already in jail. The petitioner argued that the detaining …
The appellant, Dhananjoy Das, was detained under Section 3(3) of the National Security Act, 1980 and was served with four paragraphs of grounds. He challenged the order on the basis that the first paragraph was vague and that the grounds related to law and order rather than public order, violating …
