Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Home Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles News Highlights
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Tejinder Singh Makkar Versus State of Punjab and others

2009 (7) TMI 1326 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

L.P.A.No. 117 of 2008 (O&M) - Dated:- 30-7-2009 - HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL AND HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Mr.Vikram Chaudhari, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Suvir Sehgal, Addl. A.G.Punjab, Mr. P.S.Thiara, Advocate, for the respondent JUDGEMENT ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. (Oral) 1. The appellant is aggrieved by order of the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition against the order of detention dated 5.3.2004 under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exch .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e by one Roopchand Jain on 4.12.2000 indicating involvement of the petitioner in illegal activities in supplying forged Advance Licences/AROs on commission basis. Statement was also made by one Hastimal Jeevraj Jain on 4.1.2001 that he was introduced to the petitioner by Roopchand Jain for doing this illegal business. Statement of the petitioner was recorded by DRI on 11.5.2001, wherein he was said to have admitted his role in the racket. Notice was issued to the petitioner proposing to arrest h .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

render, there was no delay in executing the detention order. The order of detention was justified to prevent the petitioner from indulging in illegal activities of evasion of customs and central excise duties. 4. Contention raised on behalf of the petitioner was that since he apprehended execution order of detention at Ludhiana, the petition was maintainable in this Court. 5. Learned Single Judge held that this Court had the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition as violation of righ .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

1986 SC 2166. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 7. Vide interim order dated 27.5.2008, operation of the impugned order was stayed. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant relies upon a judgment of this Court in Abhey Ram Jain v. Union of India and another (in Crl. Writ Petition No. 143 of 2003) dated 20.2.2003 quashing the order of detention on the ground that 7- 1/2 years had elapsed and the order had not been executed which was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (Crl.) .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Forum
what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| 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