1990 PLP 1322 (MLD)
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA‑‑Appellant Versus RAMESH KUMAR SHOBHRAJ JAIN and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1990 PLP 1322 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Bench Members | G. L. Oza, B.C Ray and K. Jagannatha Shetty, JJ |
| Parties | STATE OF MAHARASHTRA‑‑Appellant Versus RAMESH KUMAR SHOBHRAJ JAIN and others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Habeas corpus‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 1322 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Habeas corpus‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP 1322 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of India bench comprising: G. L. Oza, B.C Ray and K. Jagannatha Shetty, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 1322 (MLD) (STATE OF MAHARASHTRA‑‑Appellant Versus RAMESH KUMAR SHOBHRAJ JAIN and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- A. S. Bhasme for Appellant.
- P.H. Parekh for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑ Detention‑‑‑Habeas Corpus petition allowed by High Court with observation that all documents were not before Detaining Authority on the date on which grounds of detention were finalised‑‑‑Contention of Authorities that statement of fact made by High Court in its order was not correct‑‑‑Affidavit of counsel who was present at the hearing before High Court was not filed‑‑‑Supreme Court dismissal appeal against order of the High Court.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑ Detention‑‑‑Habeas Corpus petition allowed by High Court with observation that all documents were not before Detaining Authority on the date on which grounds of detention were finalised‑‑‑Contention of Authorities that statement of fact made by High Court in its order was not correct‑‑‑Affidavit of counsel who was present at the hearing before High Court was not filed‑‑‑Supreme Court dismissal appeal against order of the High Court. A. S. Bhasme for Appellant. P.H. Parekh for Respondents. G.L. OZA, J.‑‑ 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, 198)". 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. 1n 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 on which reliance is placed were not before the detaining authority and in such a situation the judgment of the High Court could not be assailed. The only contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant was that this statement of fact as quoted above that it is not disputed that all documents were not before the detaining authority is not correct. Except this no other ground is raised and as stated earlier this contention cannot be accepted without an affidavit filed by the learned counsel who was present at the hearing in the High Court. We therefore see no reason to entertain this appeal. It is therefore dismissed. The order passed by the High Court is maintained. It appears that the respondent has been taken into custody under orders of this Court on grant of leave. It is therefore directed that he be set at liberty forthwith. Z.S./166/F.C Appeal dismissed.