Skip to main content

High Court can’t issue habeas corpus writ in case of private detention

The Hyderabad High Court has held that it cannot issue writ of habeas corpus in case of private detention.

A division bench comprising Chief Justice Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta and Justice P.V. Sanjay Kumar was dismissing a habeas corpus petition by a person from Karimnagar district seeking production of his wife who was in alleged detention of his in- laws.

The petitioner has relied on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the  case of Mohd. Ikram Hussain versus the state of Uttar Pradesh  and  submitted that the unauthorised detention by private individual  was also can be taken care of in writ jurisdiction for issuance of writ of  habeas corpus.

After perusing the order of the Apex Court, the bench said that when  the Allahabad High Court first entertained application under Article 226 of the Constitution and Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in case of alleged detention of a person by private  individual, the High Court was under Section 491 of the Code, was conferred with specific power to issue writ of habeas corpus.

Maintaining that the Apex Court held the power of High Court under  Section 491 of the Code, 1898, was discretionary one, the bench ruled  that now, above Code, 1898, was repealed, and replaced by present Code of 1973 without corresponding power of High Court to issue writ of habeas corpus  in case of private detention.

Article referred: http://www.deccanchronicle.com/150130/nation-current-affairs/article/can%E2%80%99t-issue-habeas-corpus-writ-says-hyderabad-high-court

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