Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 189 (1.94 seconds)
Documents citing Kulwinder Pal Singh Etc vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 12 May, 2016

Rabindra Tiwary vs Lt. Governor, Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr. ... on 17 January, 2023

In the case of Kulwinder Pal Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Ors. (supra), the Supreme Court considered the provisions of Section 7 of the Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes (Reservation in Services) Act, 2006. Sub-section (1) of Section 7 of the said Act expressly provided that there would be no de-reservation of any reserved category by any appointing authority in any establishment. However, Sub-section (2) of Section 7 of the said Act enabled the appointing authority to refer the vacancies to the Department of Welfare of Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes for de-reservation, if the appointing authority deemed it necessary in public interest to fill up the said vacancies. In the aforesaid context, the Supreme Court had held as under:-
Delhi High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 1 - V Bakhru - Full Document

Shankar vs State Of Haryana on 20 December, 2019

In Siya Ram Vs. State (U.T. Chandigarh) 2009 (1) RCR (criminal) 58; Sukhchain Singh Vs. State of Punjab CRM-M-15041- 2014 decided on 18.07.2014 2015(4) RCR (criminal) 518; Gurpal Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab CRR No. 791 of 2016 and Ravinder Vs. State of Haryana CRM-M-28367-2014 decided on 26.09.2014, Single Benches of this court took the view that report under section 173 (2) of the Cr.P.C. submitted without the chemical Examiner's report would be inconclusive and after the expiry of the statutory period the accused would be entitled to the benefit of bail under section 167 (2) of the Cr.P.C. However a contrary view was taken by Single Benches of this Court in Nirmal Singh alias Kala Vs. State of Punjab criminal miscellaneous No. 9411 of 2015 and Kulwinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab criminal miscellaneous No. 23782 of 2015.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 47 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Hira Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab And Another on 4 February, 2020

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the report, which has been sent by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Patti to this Court. In the present case the allegations as per the FIR are that a fight took place at the marriage palace, in which respondent No.2 allegedly received injuries by throwing of bricks and stones by the petitioners. Although Section 308 IPC was added later on but both the parties have stated that the matter has been compromised and the injured is perfectly healthy. The scuffle took place between the parties due to some 4 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 23-02-2020 12:57:50 ::: CRM-M No.48285 of 2019 -5- misunderstanding. It is settled law that in case it does not fall in the category of heinous or serious offences and in case it is desirable in the facts and circumstances of the case that in order to avoid prolonging of litigation the matter can always be quashed by the competent Court so that the dispute is not prolonged forever. In the present case, since the Magistrate has already recorded his satisfaction with regard to the amicable settlement which was done without any coercion and influence, this Court deem it appropriate to interfere in the present petition. The law with regard to quashing of FIR on the basis of settlement in such like cases has been settled by this Court in a Full Bench judgment in Kulwinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 and Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another, 2012 (4) RCR (Criminal) 543.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - J S Puri - Full Document

Amit Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan on 22 July, 2020

In support of the contentions aforesaid, learned counsel cited judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Rai Shivendra Bahadur Vs. The Governing Body of the Nalanda College reported in SCR [1962] 144; State of Haryana Vs. Subash Chander Marwaha & Ors reported in (1974) 3 SCC 220; Shankarsan Dash Vs. UOI reported (1991) 3 SCC 47; Batiarani Gramiya Bank Vs. Pallab Kumar & Ors reported in (2004) 9 SCC 100; Subha B. Nair & Ors. Vs. State of Kerala & Ors reported in (2008) 7 SCC 210; Manoj Manu & Anr. Vs. UOI & Ors reported in (2013) 12 SCC 171; and Kulwinder Pal Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors reported in (2016) 6 SCC 532.
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - D Mehta - Full Document

Hiran Kumar Rajvanshi vs State Of Rajasthan on 22 July, 2020

In support of the contentions aforesaid, learned counsel cited judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Rai Shivendra Bahadur Vs. The Governing Body of the Nalanda College reported in SCR [1962] 144; State of Haryana Vs. Subash Chander Marwaha & Ors reported in (1974) 3 SCC 220; Shankarsan Dash Vs. UOI reported (1991) 3 SCC 47; Batiarani Gramiya Bank Vs. Pallab Kumar & Ors reported in (2004) 9 SCC 100; Subha B. Nair & Ors. Vs. State of Kerala & Ors reported in (2008) 7 SCC 210; Manoj Manu & Anr. Vs. UOI & Ors reported in (2013) 12 SCC 171; and Kulwinder Pal Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors reported in (2016) 6 SCC 532.
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - D Mehta - Full Document

Kishor Singh Chadana vs State Of Rajasthan on 20 July, 2020

In support of the contentions aforesaid, learned counsel cited judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Rai Shivendra Bahadur Vs. The Governing Body of the Nalanda College reported in SCR [1962] 144; State of Haryana Vs. Subash Chander Marwaha & Ors reported in (1974) 3 SCC 220; Shankarsan Dash Vs. UOI reported (1991) 3 SCC 47; Batiarani Gramiya Bank Vs. Pallab Kumar & Ors reported in (2004) 9 SCC 100; Subha B. Nair & Ors. Vs. State of Kerala & Ors reported in (2008) 7 SCC 210; Manoj Manu & Anr. Vs. UOI & Ors reported in (2013) 12 SCC 171; and Kulwinder Pal Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors reported in (2016) 6 SCC 532.
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - D Mehta - Full Document

Avadhesh Kumar Jangid vs State Of Rajasthan on 20 July, 2020

In support of the contentions aforesaid, learned counsel cited judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Rai Shivendra Bahadur Vs. The Governing Body of the Nalanda College reported in SCR [1962] 144; State of Haryana Vs. Subash Chander Marwaha & Ors reported in (1974) 3 SCC 220; Shankarsan Dash Vs. UOI reported (1991) 3 SCC 47; Batiarani Gramiya Bank Vs. Pallab Kumar & Ors reported in (2004) 9 SCC 100; Subha B. Nair & Ors. Vs. State of Kerala & Ors reported in (2008) 7 SCC 210; Manoj Manu & Anr. Vs. UOI & Ors reported in (2013) 12 SCC 171; and Kulwinder Pal Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors reported in (2016) 6 SCC 532.
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - D Mehta - Full Document

Veerma Ram vs State Of Rajasthan on 20 July, 2020

In support of the contentions aforesaid, learned counsel cited judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Rai Shivendra Bahadur Vs. The Governing Body of the Nalanda College reported in SCR [1962] 144; State of Haryana Vs. Subash Chander Marwaha & Ors reported in (1974) 3 SCC 220; Shankarsan Dash Vs. UOI reported (1991) 3 SCC 47; Batiarani Gramiya Bank Vs. Pallab Kumar & Ors reported in (2004) 9 SCC 100; Subha B. Nair & Ors. Vs. State of Kerala & Ors reported in (2008) 7 SCC 210; Manoj Manu & Anr. Vs. UOI & Ors reported in (2013) 12 SCC 171; and Kulwinder Pal Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors reported in (2016) 6 SCC 532.
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - D Mehta - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next