UMA NATH SINGH, T.NANDAKUMAR SINGH
Benhur M. Sangma – Appellant
Versus
State of Meghalaya – Respondent
T. Nandakumar Singh
Heard Ms. S.G. Momin, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Mr. N.D. Chullai, learned Sr. GA, assisted by Mr. S. Sen Gupta, learned GA, appearing for the respondents No. 1 and 2 and Mr. R. Deb Nath, learned CGC, appearing for the respondent No.3.
2. This writ appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 13-03-2014 passed in the WP (Crl) No. 12 of 2013 wherein and whereunder the learned Single Judge held that the original records before the Court shows that detention order was confirmed vide order dated 04-12-2013 on the recommendation of the Advisory Board but the learned Single Judge did not consider the other grounds for assailing the impugned detention order. The appellant/detenu (Shri Benhur M. Sangma) is challenging (i) the impugned detention order dated 29-09-2013 issued by the detaining authority i.e. the District Magistrate, West Garo Hills District, Tura in exercise of his powers conferred upon him under Section 3 (1) of the Meghalaya Preventive Detention Act, (for short MPDA), 1995, for detaining the appellant/detenu, (ii) the impugned order of the Government of Meghalaya dated 10-10-2013 under Sub-se
Rattan Singh v. State of Punjab
Rekha Devi vs. State of Tamil Nadu
State of Maharastra v. Bhaurao Punjabrao Gawande
Sunila Jain vs. Union of India and Another
Senthamilselvi vs. State of T.N. and Others
Kamlesh Kumar Ishwardas Patel Vs. Union of India & Ors.
Kamarunnissa vs. Union of India
H.L. Dattu in Pebam Ningol Mikol Mikoi Devi vs. State of Manipur and Others
Union of India vs. Paul Manickam and Another
N. Meera Rani v. Govt. of T.N.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.