AI Overview...
-
Meharunnissa Farooq Shaikh - Supreme Court
There are no specific details or case references related to Meharunnissa Farooq Shaikh in the provided sources. -
Ganja and NDPS Act - Court Findings
The court affirmed the conviction and sentence regarding the seizure of Ganja, noting that the items did not qualify as Ganja under the NDPS Act, and discussed the legal requirements for lawful search under Section 42 of the NDPS Act. The Supreme Court had previously considered similar questions about the definition and lawfulness of searches in NDPS cases. Meharunnissa Farooq Shaikh vs The State of Maharashtra - Bombay -
Voting Rights and Court Proceedings
The petitioner claimed they were denied voting rights contrary to court orders. The court noted similar cases, such as H.S. Raju v. State of Karnataka, emphasizing the importance of adherence to court directives regarding voting procedures. The issue was brought to the court's attention by the AGA, highlighting procedural compliance concerns. ZEENATH BANU K v/s THE STATE OF KARNATAKA - Karnataka
Analysis and Conclusion:
There is no direct information linking Meharunnissa Farooq Shaikh to the cases or issues discussed in the provided sources. The sources primarily cover legal discussions on NDPS Act enforcement and voting rights disputes, with references to Supreme Court proceedings and legal principles.
Search Results for "Meharunnissa Farooq Shaikh Supreme Court"
• India - Bombay High Court - Appellate Side,Bombay
R.C. CHAVAN, J
) Definition of Ganja - The appellant contended that the seized items did not qualify as Ganja as defined by the NDPS Act - The court ... ... ... Findings of Court: ... Affirmation of conviction and sentence, reduction in default imprisonment required for fine, noting ... Lawful Search - The provisions of Section 42 of the NDPS Act concerning information recording prior to the raid were discussed - The court ... The learned APP also submitted that this question had come up for consideration before the Supreme #HL_STAR....
2025 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 3295 • India - High Court of Karnataka
K S HEMALEKHA
The petitioners state that they were not permitted to vote in compliance with the order passed by this Court. 5. The Returning Officer is present before the Court. ... It is brought to the notice of this Court that under identical circumstances, the Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of H.S. Raju and others Vs. State of Karnataka and others, [2022 (4) AKR 775] (H.S. ... It is brought to the notice of this Court by the learned AGA that out of the total petitioners who have approached this #HL_ST....
Filter by Legal Phrase
