Skip to main content

Habeas corpus not meant for missing person cases, says HC

The Kerala high court has ruled that a habeas corpus petition cannot be entertained in the case of missing persons. The court clarified that a writ (court order) of habeas corpus is issued only for producing a detainee and to release him if the detention is illegal. Habeas corpus petitions are often filed by relatives and friends of persons who go missing.

The ruling was given by a division bench comprising justices Antony Dominic and Anil K Narendran while considering a habeas corpus petition filed by Rafeeq M of Edathanattukara in Palakkad. Rafeeq alleged that his uncle, 53-year-old Mammed alias Manuppa, was missing since May 18th last year and police had taken no action despite a complaint. He wanted the court to issue a writ of habeas corpus for tracing his uncle.

Director general of prosecution T Asaf Ali informed the court that person could not be traced and a final report was filed before Mannarkkad judicial first class magistrate court on September 25th.

Declining to issue a writ of habeas corpus, the court said, ".... Such being the situation, we are not satisfied that the petitioner could establish a case of illegal detention of the detenue to file this writ petition with a prayer (demand) of habeas corpus".

 Article referred: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/kochi/Habeas-corpus-not-meant-for-missing-person-cases-says-HC/articleshow/31123362.cms

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more