Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

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.
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
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:
RelevanceDefaultDate
    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
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      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

        -

        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

        <h1>Supreme Court quashes detention order citing grounds irrelevance, lack of satisfaction, and procedural violations.</h1> <h3>KRISHNA MURARI AGGARWALA Versus. THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS.</h3> The Supreme Court quashed the detention order dated November 8, 1974, due to the irrelevance of grounds (1)(a) & (b), the lack of clear subjective ... - Issues Involved:1. Legality of the reference to the Advisory Board.2. Relevance of grounds for detention under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971.3. Subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority.4. Compliance with procedural requirements under Section 3(1) of the Act.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Legality of the Reference to the Advisory Board:The petitioner contended that the reference to the Advisory Board was made on December 20, 1974, beyond the statutory period, violating Section 10 of the Act. However, the Government produced materials showing that the reference was actually made on November 22, 1974. The original file and a letter from the Registrar dated January 7, 1975, confirmed this date. Consequently, the petitioner's counsel did not press this point further. The Court expressed strong disapproval of the incorrect counter-affidavit filed by the then District Magistrate, Mr. S. K. D. Mathur, and urged the Government to avoid such errors in the future.2. Relevance of Grounds for Detention:The petitioner was detained for allegedly hoarding light diesel oil without a proper license, which was claimed to be prejudicial to the maintenance of essential supplies. The grounds (1)(a) & (b) of the detention order detailed inspections on October 17, 1974, and November 5, 1974, where large quantities of light diesel oil were found without a valid license. The Court noted that there was no allegation that the petitioner disrupted the distribution or sale of the oil, nor refused to sell it to those in need. The Court found no correlation between the petitioner's actions and the disruption of essential supplies, deeming grounds (1)(a) & (b) irrelevant.Ground No. (2) alleged fictitious sales of light diesel oil without issuing proper receipts, violating the U.P. Essential Commodities (Price Display and Control of Supply and Distribution) Order, 1971. The petitioner admitted the violation but attributed it to a clerical error. The Court found this explanation unconvincing, noting that the petitioner could not have consumed such large quantities of oil personally. However, since ground No. (1) was irrelevant, the Court could not determine the extent to which it influenced the detaining authority's satisfaction, rendering the entire detention order invalid.3. Subjective Satisfaction of the Detaining Authority:The Court found contradictions in the affidavits regarding who passed the detention order and who was satisfied with the grounds. Mr. S. K. D. Mathur claimed he passed the order and was satisfied with the grounds, while Mr. R. C. Arora served the grounds. However, Mr. Mathur later suggested that both he and Mr. Arora were the detaining authorities. This inconsistency indicated a lack of due care and proper exercise of jurisdiction, further invalidating the detention order.4. Compliance with Procedural Requirements under Section 3(1) of the Act:Section 3(1) requires that the order of detention be made by the specified authority, duly signed, and based on contemporaneous grounds. The contradictory affidavits made it unclear who actually made and was satisfied with the order. The Court emphasized that the order and grounds must be signed by the authority concerned, and the grounds must exist contemporaneously with the order. The failure to meet these requirements constituted a serious procedural infirmity, violating Section 3 of the Act.Conclusion:The Supreme Court quashed the detention order dated November 8, 1974, due to the irrelevance of grounds (1)(a) & (b), the lack of clear subjective satisfaction by the detaining authority, and procedural violations under Section 3(1) of the Act. The petitioner was ordered to be released forthwith.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found