SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1988 Supreme(SC) 15

B.C.RAY, G.L.OZA, K.JAGANNATHA SHETTY
State Of Maharashtra – Appellant
Versus
Ramesh Kumar Shobhraj Jain – Respondent


Advocates:
A.S.BHASME, P.H.Parekh

Judgment

JUDGMENT:- The habeas corpus petition filed by the respondents was allowed by the judgment of the Bombay High Court dated 13-2-1987 where it has been specifically stated that "It is not disputed that at the time the grounds were formulated, the detaining authority had before it documents only at Serial No. 6 was actually received and considered by the detaining authority on 24th February 1986". The documents were really received by the detaining authority on 24-2-1986 and it is on the basis of this that the learned Judge allowed the habeas corpus petition.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that this statement of fact contained in the judgment is not correct and it is contended that this has been stated in the special leave petition. But it is clear that the affidavit of the counsel who was present before the High Court of Bombay when this matter was heard, has not been filed. In such a situation, we cannot accept any statement excepting the statement made in the judgment about the facts.

3. The learned Judge on the basis of this admitted situation of facts came to the conclusion that on the date on which the grounds were finalised all the documents


Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top