S. RAJENDRA BABU, K. T. THOMAS, G. T. NANAVATI, D. P. WADHWA, A. S. ANAND
Sunil Fulchand Shah – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Dr. A.S. Anand, CJI.—(K.T. Thomas, D.P. Wadhwa & S. Rajendra Babu, JJ. agreeing).
I have had the advantage of going through the judgment of our learned brother Nanavati, J. and I agree that these petitions should be allowed. Long period has lapsed since the detenus in each of these cases were released and no material has been placed before us by the detaining authority to warrant further detention of the detenus at this distant point of time. The detenus, in my opinion need not be directed to undergo “the remaining period of detention” because the nexus between detention and object of detention would appear to have been snapped during this period of about ten years, during which period detenus were free. In fairness to the learned Attorney General it must be stated that he fairly conceded this position. I find myself unable to fully subscribe to the view of brother Nanavati, J. relating to the treatment of the period during which a detenu is free as a result of an erroneous order of the High Court which is set aside on appeal. I would also like to give my own reasons in support of the answer to the other questions involved in these cases.
2. It would be appropriate to first
State of Gujarat v. Adam Kasam Bhaya
State of Gujarat v. Ismail Juma & Ors.
Smt. Poonam Lata v. M.L. Wadhawan and others
Pushpadevi M. Jatia v. M.L. Wadhawan
Harish Makhija v. State of U.P.
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.
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.