P. K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, G. P. MATHUR
T. P. Moideen Koya – Appellant
Versus
Government Of Kerala – Respondent
JUDGMENT
G.P. Mathur, J.-This petition under Article 32 of the Constitution has been filed for quashing and setting aside the detention order dated 21.1.2002 issued by Government of Kerala for detaining the petitioner T.P. Moideen Koya under Section 3(i)(iv) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short COFEPOSA ).
2. The residence of one Pulikuth Hamzath Abdussalam @ Kunjumon was searched on 18.8.2001 and gold biscuit of foreign origin weighing 4430.8 grams valued at Rs. 19,80,567, Indian currency worth Rs. 15,24,500 and foreign currencies worth Rs. 1,39,360 were recovered and some incriminating documents and a computer with accessories were also seized. The statement of M. Mohammed Mustafa, a distant relative and employee of Kunjumon which was recorded on 19.8.2001 and the seized documents showed that petitioner Moideen Koya had dealt with 290 smuggled gold biscuits valued at Rs. 1.5 crores. He had transaction worth Rs. 18 crores with Kunjumon during the period 1.8.2001 to 15.8.2001. The Government of Kerala thereafter passed a detention order on 21.1.2001 for detaining the petitioner under Section 3(i) (iv) of the COFEPOSA. Th
Devilal Modi v. Sales Tax Officer, Ratlam & Ors.
Virudhunagar Steel Rolling Mills Ltd. v. The Government of Madras
M/s. Tilokchand Motichand & Ors. v. H.B. Munshi, Commissioner of Sales Tax, Bombay & Anr.
Ghulam Sarwar v. Union of India & Ors.
Niranjan Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh
Bhagubhai Dullabhbhai Bhandari v. District Magistrate
Binod Singh v. District Magistrate
Rameshwar Shaw v. District Magistrate
Kamarunnissa v. Union of India
Ramesh Yadav v. District Magistrate
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.