TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>High Court Direction for 72-Hour Notice Before Arrest Overruled</h1> <h3>VIJAYKUMAR GOPICHAND RAMCHANDANI Versus AMAR SADHURAM MULCHANDANI & ORS.</h3> VIJAYKUMAR GOPICHAND RAMCHANDANI Versus AMAR SADHURAM MULCHANDANI & ORS. - TMI Issues:1. Validity of the direction for 72 hours' notice before arrest in a cognizable offence complaint.Analysis:The Supreme Court addressed the issue of a direction given by a Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, where it was ordered that the first respondent should be provided with 72 hours' notice before any potential arrest in connection with a complaint related to a cognizable offence. The Court found this direction to be legally incorrect, citing the case of Union of India v Padam Narain Aggarwal & Others (2008) 13 SCC 305. The Court emphasized that such a directive should not have been issued by the High Court, leading to the conclusion that the direction for advance notice was improper in law.The Supreme Court proceeded to vacate and set aside the direction requiring 72 hours' advance notice before the arrest of the first respondent in the event of a complaint concerning a cognizable offence. Additionally, the Court clarified that the first respondent retained the right to pursue legal remedies if he felt aggrieved by any actions taken against him. Consequently, the petition was disposed of by the Court, and any pending applications were also resolved as part of the judgment.
TaxTMI 