Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        Note

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        Detention order under COFEPOSA quashed for lack of crucial documents. Petitioner to be released unless required elsewhere.

        Ahamed Nassar Versus State of Tamil Nadu

        Ahamed Nassar Versus State of Tamil Nadu - [2000] 25 SCL 145 (SC), 1999 AIR 3897, 1999 (3) Suppl. SCR 657, 1999 (8) SCC 473, 1999 (8) JT 252, 1999 (6) ... Issues Involved:
        1. Legality of the detention order under COFEPOSA.
        2. Delay in considering the detenu's representation.
        3. Non-placement of relevant documents before the detaining authority.
        4. Subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority regarding the likelihood of the detenu being released on bail.

        Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

        1. Legality of the Detention Order under COFEPOSA:
        The petitioner challenged the detention order dated 28-4-1999 under section 3(1)(i) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA). The detention order aimed to prevent the petitioner from smuggling goods in the future. The customs authorities intercepted the petitioner at Anna International Airport, Chennai, suspecting him of carrying contraband or electronic goods. Upon examination, the customs officers found 65 cellular phones, 14 AIWA walkmen, 10 cartons of State Express 555 cigarettes, and one Sony Video CD player concealed in his baggage. The goods were seized under the Customs Act, 1962, with the total value being Rs. 7,16,200 (CIF) and Rs. 10,74,300 (market value). The petitioner was arrested on 13-3-1999 and remanded to judicial custody. The detention order was served on 28-4-1999 while he was in Central Prison, Chennai.

        2. Delay in Considering the Detenu's Representation:
        The petitioner argued that there was a delay in considering his representation dated 21-5-1999 by both the State and Central Governments. The representation was received by the State Government on 22-5-1999, and remarks were called for on 24-5-1999, which were received on 27-5-1999, resulting in a delay of two days. The representation to the Central Government was received on 25-5-1999, and comments were called from the detaining authority on 1-6-1999. The delay was attributed to postal communication. The court held that the delay in communication through speed post was not attributable to the authorities and did not constitute callousness or undue delay.

        3. Non-Placement of Relevant Documents Before the Detaining Authority:
        The petitioner contended that material documents, including his letter dated 23-4-1999 and his advocate's letter dated 19-4-1999, were not placed before the detaining authority. The court emphasized that every relevant and vital document must be placed before the detaining authority. The letter dated 23-4-1999, which contained the detenu's retraction from his earlier confession and other factual assertions, was not placed before the detaining authority. Similarly, the advocate's letter dated 19-4-1999, which also contained relevant information, was not placed before the detaining authority. The court held that the non-placement of these relevant documents vitiated the detention order.

        4. Subjective Satisfaction of the Detaining Authority Regarding the Likelihood of the Detenu Being Released on Bail:
        The petitioner argued that the detaining authority's subjective satisfaction that there was a likelihood of the detenu being released on bail was not based on any factual basis. The court noted that the detaining authority considered the bail application dated 1-4-1999 and the rejection order dated 12-4-1999. The court held that the detaining authority could legitimately conclude that there was a likelihood of the detenu being released on bail based on the contents of the bail application and the circumstances of the case.

        Conclusion:
        The court quashed the impugned detention order dated 28-4-1999 under section 3(1)(i) of COFEPOSA, holding that the non-placement of relevant documents before the detaining authority vitiated the detention order. The writ petition was allowed, and the petitioner was ordered to be released from jail forthwith unless required in connection with some other case.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found