1994 (2) TMI 301 - SUPREME COURT
R.M. INVESTMENT & TRADING CO. PVT. LTD. Versus BOEING CO.
... ... not find any infirmity in the said approach of the Division Bench of the High Court. SLP (Civil) Nos. 121-22 of 1994 are also liable to be dismissed. 23.In the result all the three special leave petitions filed by the petitioner (RMI) are dismissed.
1992 (8) TMI 225 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
PV. Mohammad Barmay Sons Versus Director of Enforcement
Whether the Act is incompatible with the repealed Act i.e. Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947? - Whether it manifested any contrary intentions to the repealed Act? - Held that - Appeal dismissed. Article 20(1) of the Constitution of India provides that no person shall be convicted of any offence except for violation of the law in force at the time of commission of the act charged as an offence, nor be subjected to a penalty greater than that w....... + More
1991 (12) TMI 269 - SUPREME COURT
PU. IQBAL Versus UOI.
Whether there was an unreasonable delay in executing the order of detention from the date of passing of the detention order throwing considerable doubt on the genuineness of the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority as regards the necessity to detain the petitioner/ - Held that - In the present case, the circumstances indicate that the detaining authority after passing the detention order was indifferent in securing the detenu by not....... + More
1991 (10) TMI 303 - SUPREME COURT
ABDUL SATHAR IBRAHIM MANIK Versus UOI.
Whether the detaining authority was aware of the fact that the detenu was in custody and if so was there any material to show that there were compelling reasons to order detention inspire of his being in custody? - Held that - Sections 111 and 113 of the Customs Act provide for confiscation of improperly imported goods and exported goods respectively. The submission of the learned counsel is that the petitioner being in custody in India can no mo....... + More
1991 (8) TMI 330 - Supreme Court of India
AMIR SHAD KHAN AZIZ AHMEDKHAN @ AZIZMOHD. KHAN Versus L. HMINGLIANA AND ORS.
Whether failure on the part of the Detaining Authority as well as the State Government to accede to the request of the appellants to take out copies of the representations and forward the same to the Central Government for consideration has resulted in violation of their constitutional/statutory right to have their representation considered by the Central Government? - Whether the detention orders are liable to be quashed on that ground? - Held t....... + More
1990 (12) TMI 216 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ADDL. SECRETARY TO GOVT. OF INDIA Versus ALKA SUBHASH GADIA
Whether the detenu or anyone on his behalf is entitled to challenge the detention order without the detenu submitting or surrendering to it? - Held that - In the present case, admittedly the proposed detenu is absconding and has been evading the service of the detention order. The first respondent who is his wife has sought to challenge the said order because the show-cause notice under sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the SAFEMA is issued to him,....... + More
1989 (8) TMI 340 - SUPREME COURT
TA ABDUL RAHMAN Versus STATE OF KERALA AND ORS.
Whether the past activities of the detenu is such that from it a reasonable prognosis can be made as to the future conduct of the detenu and its utility, therefore, lies only in so far as it subserves that purpose and it cannot be allowed to dominate or drawn it? - Held that - The representation of the detenu has not been given prompt and expeditious consideration, and was allowed to lie without being properly attended to. The explanation now off....... + More
1989 (5) TMI 170 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SUNIL FULCHAND SHAH Versus UNION OF INDIA
... ... he period intended by the statute. As the matter is of great public importance, and most cases of preventive detention are bound to be affected, we refer these cases to a Bench of five Hon rsquo ble Judges for reconsideration of the law on the point.
1988 (12) TMI 180 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
HARIDAS AMARCHAND SHAH Versus KL. VERMA & OTHERS
Quashing the said detention order - Held that - In the instant case as we have said hereinbefore that the bank pass books are not vital and material documents in reaching subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority and as such the failure to furnish the bank pass books to the detenu has not infringed any right of the appellant and the order of detention cannot be questioned as illegal or vitiated on that score. Appeal dismissed........ + More
1988 (9) TMI 175 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Versus SUSHILA MAFATLAL SHAH
Whether by reason of D.N. Capoor having passed the order of detention only in exercise of his special empowerment to act under Section 3(1) of the Act and not in exercise of any right given to him under the Rules of Business of the Government, he was under a constitutional obligation to communicate to and afford opportunity to the detenu to make a representation to himself in the first instance before the detenu availed of his right to make repre....... + More
1988 (4) TMI 148 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
BAL CHAND BANSAL Versus UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS
Order of detention made under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 challneged - Held that - The learned Additional Solicitor General placed before us the grounds served on the petitioner, at some length, wherein it is inter alia stated that the petitioner was running a business firm under the name and style of M/s. B.N. Corporation in Hong Kong as also offices in other places includ....... + More
1987 (5) TMI 337 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Rai Bahadur Seth Shreeram Durgaprasad Versus Director of Enforcement
Whether the word whoever in sub-section (1) of section 23 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, before its amendment by Act XXXIX of 1957, denoted only a natural person and an association of persons, such as a firm, would not fall within the connotation of the word whoever ? - Held that - Appeal dismissed. The initiation of adjudication proceedings for failure to repatriate foreign exchange on shipments of manganese ore prior to September....... + More
1987 (4) TMI 477 - SUPREME COURT
POONAM LATA Versus ML WADHAWAN
Whether the period of parole has to be excluded in reckoning the period of detention under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Act? - Held that - The legislative scheme, keeping the purpose of the statute and the manner of its fulfilment provided thereunder, would not justify entertaining of an application for release of a detenu on parole. Since in our view release on parole is not a matter of judicial determination, apparently no provision as c....... + More
1987 (4) TMI 398 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Pushpadevi M. Jatia Versus ML Wadhavan, Addl. Secretary, Government of India
Whether the impugned order of detention was based on no material inasmuch as R.C. Singh was not a gazetted officer of enforcement and, therefore, the statements recorded by him had no evidentiary value whether the statements recorded by him could be treated to be statements relatable to section 39(b) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act and could still from the basis for such satisfaction? - Whether there was non-application of mind on the part....... + More
1987 (3) TMI 241 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS Versus MANOHARLAL NARANG
Preventive detention orders - Held that - Since the order of detention did not mention that the detenue in these cases was an under trial prisoner, that he was arrested in connection with the three cases, that applications for bail were pending and that he was released on three successive days in the three cases, this Court had to observe that there was d total absence of application of mind on the part of the detaining authority while passing th....... + More
1987 (1) TMI 396 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
MG Wagh Versus Jay Engineering Works Ltd.
Applicability of section 12(2) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act of 1947 - Held that - Allow this appeal and set aside the order of the High Court quashing the show-cause notices impugned in the writ petition by the original writ petitioner dismiss the writ petition instituted by the respondents, with liberty to the parties to raise all contentions on facts and law barring the contention that section 12(2) of the Act is not attracted........ + More
1986 (9) TMI 356 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P. & S. Export Corpn. Versus Deputy Director of Enforcement
Appeal made under section 23EE of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 dismissed - Held that - Appeal dismissed. There is no escape from the conclusion that the appellant con travened section 12(2) of the Act. The High Court committed no error in rejecting the appellant s submission........ + More
1986 (9) TMI 163 - INDIA SUPREME COURT
P & S EXPORT CORPORATION Versus DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF ENFORCEMENT
Whether High Court was correct in dismissing the appeal on the findings that the order of the Appellate Authority did not suffer from any error of law? - Held that - The findings recorded by the Deputy Director Enforcement and the Appellate Authority leave no room for doubt that the appellant took delivery of goods himself when he was in U.S.A. and sold the same by private sale in a surreptitious manner disregarding the directions of the Reserve ....... + More
1986 (2) TMI 334 - SUPREME COURT
SITA RAM SOMANI Versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN
Whether it was necessary to detain the appellant under the COFEPOSA? - Held that - No one can dispute the right of the detaining authority to make an order of detention if on a consideration of the relevant material, the detaining authority came to the conclusion that it was necessary to detain the appellant. But the question was whether the detaining authority applied its mind to relevant considerations. If it did not, the appellant would be ent....... + More
1985 (4) TMI 323 - Supreme Court Of India
PRATAP SINGH (DR.) Versus DIRECTOR OF ENFORCEMENT FOREIGN EXCHANGE REGULATION ACT
officer must have reason to believe that the incomes, profits or gains chargeable to income-tax have been under-assessed, then alone he can take action. whether these grounds are adequate or not is not a matter for the court to investigate. ....... + More