Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The petitioner was detained in June 2022 based on a FIR registered against him in 2004. However, the petitioner had already been acquitted from the charges levied against him in 2004.
“Section 60(4) of Bihar VAT Act, 2005 enables a seizure of goods along with the carrier if the authority suspects the transport to be in contravention of the provisions of Section 60(2).”
Madras High Court: A writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of habeus corpus
Gujarat High Court: Paresh Upadhyay, J., allowed a petition which was filed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Police, Surat
Jammu and Kashmir High Court: Puneet Gupta, J., while setting aside the detention order, reiterated that subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority
Jammu and Kashmir High Court: Tashi Rabstan, J., while dismissing a criminal writ petition seeking to challenge the grounds preferred for detention,
Jammu and Kashmir High Court: Ali Mohammad Magrey, J. quashed the detention order and allowed the petition as the Detaining Authority had
No. F.2/1/88-HP-II/ Pt.-I/775-78.—Whereas the Lt. Governor of the National Capital Territory of Delhi is satisfied that it is necessary to do so;
Jammu and Kashmir High Court: Tashi Rabstan J., in a matter relating to preventive detention declined to provide opinion over that of
Jammu & Kashmir High Court: Ali Mohammad Magrey, J. allowed the application filed by the petitioner to free him from detention. The
Jammu & Kashmir High Court: This Habeas Corpus petition was filed before the Bench of Ali Mohammad Magrey, J., for quashing of
Jammu and Kashmir High Court: A Single Judge Bench of Rashid Ali Dar, J., allowed the petition which challenged the order of