Feedback   New User   Subscription   Demo   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Case Laws
Home Case Index All Cases FEMA SC FEMA - SC
Law
Court
Citation -
Landmark
Order by
 

 

FEMA - Supreme Court - Case Laws

Showing 81 to 100 of 116 Records

  • 1984 (5) TMI 264 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

    STATE OF U.P. Versus ZAVAD ZEMA KHAN

    ... ...
    ... ... is that the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The judgment and order of the High Court is set aside and the order of detention passed by the District Magistrate under sub-s. (3) of s. 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 is maintained. Appeal allowed.


  • 1984 (2) TMI 316 - SUPREME COURT

    UOI. Versus HAJI MASTAN MIRZA

    Whether order of detention is illegal, null and void ab initio and inoperative and be quashed? - Held that - Non- application of mind of the Detaining Authority to the material placed before him before he passed the impugned order of detention dated 19.12.1974 and the failure of the appellant to supply copies of the documents clearly and unmistakably relied upon for arriving at the subjective satisfaction that the respondent s detention under COF....... + More


  • 1983 (3) TMI 259 - SUPREME COURT

    MOHD. SHAKEEL WAHID AHMED Versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

    Whether the detaining authority had applied its mind to the relevant facts and circumstances bearing on the question of the petitioner s detention? - Held that - The order of detention was issued, that is to say passed, on November 7, 1981 and we must have regard to the state of circumstances which were in existence on that date. Shri Capoor seems to suggest that the Advisory Board s opinion dated October 19, 1981 came into existence after he had....... + More


  • 1982 (10) TMI 206 - SUPREME COURT

    IBRAHIM AHMAD BATTI @ MOHD. AKHTAR Versus STATE OF GUJARAT

    Whether such delay was justified by existence of any exceptional circumstances as required by s. 3 (3) of the COFEPOSA for in the absence of exceptional circumstances delay beyond normal period of five days would be a breach of the constitutional as well as the legislative mandate? - Held that - In the instant case, for instance, if the alleged exceptional circumstances were communicated to the detenu at the time of the delayed supply of the conc....... + More


  • 1982 (5) TMI 179 - Supreme Court of India

    PHILLIPPA ANNE DUKE Versus THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ORS.

    Whether the detention continued to be justified on the date of the report of the Advisory Board, even if it was justified on the date of the making of the order of detention? - Held that - The order of detention was made on 7.1.82 and the consideration by the Advisory Board was on 8.2.82. The passage of time was not so long nor had any circumstances intervened to justify any compartment-wise consideration of the justification for the detention on....... + More


  • 1981 (11) TMI 175 - Supreme Court of India

    SAT PAL Versus STATE OF PUNJAB

    Whether the failure of the State Government of Punjab to forward the representation made by the detenu to the Central Government for revocation of his order of detention under Section 11 of the Act with reasonable despatch renders his continued detention invalid? - Held that - In the present case, there was, therefore, no denial of the right of making a representation to the Central Government for revocation of the order of detention under Sectio....... + More


  • 1981 (10) TMI 174 - SUPREME COURT

    RATTAN SINGH Versus STATE OF PUNJAB

    Validity of an order dated March 27, 1981 passed by respondent 1, the State of Punjab, under section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign enchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 challenged - Held that - The failure in this case on the part either of the Jail Superintendent or the State Government to forward the detenu s representation to the Central Government has deprived the detenu of the valuable right to have his detention re....... + More


  • 1981 (10) TMI 173 - SUPREME COURT

    STATE OF GUJARAT Versus ISMAIL JUMA & ORS.

    Whether the order of detention has been passed on the materials before it? - Held that - It has been stated in the affidavit that the entire record was placed before the Home Minister who after careful consideration of the entire record has passed the impugned order of detention and that he (Mr. Shah) only authenticated the impugned order of detention in accordance with sub-clause (2) of Article 166 of the Constitution of India. As the order has ....... + More


  • 1981 (9) TMI 295 - SUPREME COURT

    STATE OF GUJARAT Versus. ADAM KASAM BHAYA

    ... ...
    ... ... in Section 3 of the Act is the satisfaction of the detaining authority and not of the Court. The judgment of the High Court, therefore, is liable to be set aside. We set aside the order of the High Court and allow the appeal. G S.R. Appeal allowed.


  • 1981 (8) TMI 216 - Supreme Court of India

    MASUMA (SMT.) Versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

    Whether the detention is to be continued beyond a period of three months or not? - Whether there was unreasonable delay on the part of the State Government in considering the representation of the detenu? - Held that - The only inhibition on the detaining authority is that it cannot lawfully continue the detention for a period longer than three months unless the Advisory Board has, before the expiration of the period of three months, reported tha....... + More


  • 1981 (5) TMI 115 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

    LMS. UMMU SALEEMA(MST.) Versus BB. GUJARAL

    Legality of the detention of Jahaubar Moulana under the provisions of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 - Held that - Reading of the entire counter affidavit makes it clear that in the opinion of the detaining authority, prosecution or no prosecution, the only effective way of preventing Jahaubar Moulana from engaging himself in objectionable activities was to detain him. Appeal dismissed........ + More


  • 1981 (3) TMI 255 - SUPREME COURT

    HARISH PAHWA Versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.

    ... ...
    ... ... municated to the detenu. This not having been done in the present case we have no option but to declare the detention unconstitutional. We order accordingly, allow the appeal and direct that the appellant be set at liberty forthwith. Appeal allowed.


  • 1981 (1) TMI 273 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

    FRANCIS CORALIE MULLIN Versus ADMINISTRATOR UNION TERRITORY OF DELHI

    Right of a detenu under COFEPOSA Act - interview with a lawyer and the members of his family - preventive detention and punitive detention right to life in detention. ....... + More


  • 1981 (1) TMI 251 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

    KIRIT KUMAR CHAMAN LAL KUNDALIYA Versus UOI.

    Whether or not the documents demanded by the detenu were relevant was decided not by the Minister who was the detaining authority but by the Secretary? - Held that - it is absolutely clear to us that whether the documents concerned are referred to, relied upon or taken into consideration by the detaining authority they have to be supplied to the detenu as part of the grounds so as to enable the detenu to make an effective representation immediate....... + More


  • 1980 (12) TMI 182 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

    LALLUBHAI JOGIBHAI PATEL Versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

    Whether detention of the detenu was illegal? - Held that - The materials and documents which were not supplied to the detenu were evidently a part of those materials which had influenced the mind of the detaining authority in passing the order of detention. They were a part of the basic facts and materials, and therefore, should have been supplied to the detenu ordinarily within five days of the order of detention, and, for exceptional reasons to....... + More


  • 1980 (11) TMI 152 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

    S. GURDIP SINGH Versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

    ... ...
    ... ... case, therefore, falls within the four corners of the ratio laid down by the cases referred to above and his detention must be held to be without jurisdiction. The petition is therefore allowed and the petitioner is directed to be released forthwith.


  • 1980 (10) TMI 199 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

    SHALINI SONI & ORS. Versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

    Release of the three detenus whose detention under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 challenged - Held that - We have no doubt that the communication dated July 27, 1980 was a representation which was in law required to be considered by the detaining authority. Quite obviously, the obligation imposed on the detaining authority, by Art. 22(5) of the Constitution, to afford to the detenu the earli....... + More


  • 1980 (9) TMI 279 - SUPREME COURT

    MANGALBHAI MOTIRAM PATEL Versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

    whether it is under the Preventive Detention Act or the Maintenance of Internal Security Act or the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act or any other law providing for preventive detention? - Held that - The community has a vital interest in the proper enforcement of its laws, particularly in an area such as conservation of foreign exchange and prevention of smuggling activities in dealing effectively with p....... + More


  • 1980 (9) TMI 271 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

    PRITAM NATH HOON Versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

    Whether the petitioner who has been detained in pursuance of an order dated the 29th May 1980 issued by the Government of Maharashtra in exercise of the powers conferred on it by clause (a) of section 5 of the Conversion of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 shall be immediately released from custody which, according to him, is illegal? - Held that - It is now settled law that the detaining authority is bound to giv....... + More


  • 1980 (9) TMI 270 - SUPREME COURT

    ICCHU DEVI CHORARIA Versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

    Whether there was any breach of the requirements of Article 22 clause (5) of the Constitution and Section 3, sub-section (3) of the COFEPOSA Act, for that is the breach which is claimed by the petitioner as invalidating the continued detention of the detenue? - Held that - The time of 12 days taken up by the Assistant Collector of Customs was therefore unreasonably long for which no explanation at all was forthcoming from the detaining authority........ + More


 
 
 
Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version