Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 31 (0.59 seconds)
Documents citing Sunil Kumar Gupta vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh on 27 February, 2019

Jayant Kumar vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 2 September, 2022

In the facts and circumstances of the case and provisions of the aforesaid Government Order as well as the law laid down by a co-ordinate bench of this Court in Writ C No. 2085 of 2019 (Sunil Kumar Gupta vs. State of U.P. and 3 others) decided on 22.01.2019, this petition is disposed of directing the respondent No.3/Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bansgaon District Gorakhpur to pass appropriate order on the application dated 02.12.2020 as per Government Order dated 05.08.2019 and forward the matter to the Tehsil Level Selection Committee within three weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order and the Tehsil Level Selection Committee will decide the matter most expeditiously and preferably within four weeks thereafter.
Allahabad High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - P Padia - Full Document

Sunil Kumar vs Sudhir Kumar, Revenue Officer And ... on 30 September, 2019

Without entering into the controversy raised by the petitioner, the petition stands disposed of directing Sub Divisional Officer, Mainpuri, District Mainpuri to decide the Suit No. 82 of 2000 (Sunil Kumar vs. State of U.P.) filed under Section 229-B of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, expeditiously, without granting unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties preferably within a period of one year from the date of producing a certified copy of this order before him."
Allahabad High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - M C Tripathi - Full Document

Dipendra Kumar Singh Alias Bittu vs State Of U.P. & Anr. on 9 January, 2020

In the case of Sunil Kumar Gupta Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. along with Khusboo Gupta Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. (Supra). The case was of bride burning where the victim in her dying declaration specifically mentioned the name of only one accused and even the prosecution witnesses could not deposed about the role of proposed accused summoned by the trial court in exercise of power given to it under Section 319 Cr.P.C. in para 10 and 11 of the said judgment the Hon'ble Court held as under:-
Allahabad High Court Cites 43 - Cited by 2 - V K Srivastav - Full Document

Nikhil Dudeja vs State Of Haryana on 4 July, 2022

16. The said principle was reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment of Sunil Kumar Gupta Vs State of Uttar Pradesh, (2019) 4 SCC 556 wherein it was held that a person cannot be added as an accused under Section 319 CrPC to face trial on the basis of vague and nonspecific allegations. Even though a prima facie case is to be established from the evidence led before the Court, not necessarily to be tested on the anvil of cross examination, it requires much stronger evidence than mere probability of his complicity. The test that has to be applied is one which is more than prima facie case as exercised at the time of framing of charge but short of satisfaction. Unless a higher standard for forming an opinion to summon a person as an additional accused is not followed, the ingredients would not be satisfied.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Kollipara Krishna Kumar vs State Of Ap on 7 February, 2024

_________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date: 07.02.2024 DSV 9 51 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHARA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.3992 OF 2019 Date: 07 .02.2024 DSV 10 HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATHI MAIN CASE: Crl.P.No.3992 of 2019 PROCEEDING SHEET Sl. Office DATE ORDER No Note 07.02.2024 TRR, J The Criminal Petition is allowed.
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sunita Gupta vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Housing & ... on 22 August, 2019

The precise case of the petitioner is that husband of the petitioner, namely, Sunil Kumar Gupta, was appointed on the post of Tracer on 17.10.1989 by the duly constituted Departmental Selection Committee. In the year 1996, the candidature of some employees including the husband of the petitioner was sent before the Competent Authority for regularisation but since the husband of the petitioner could not produce the required documents in the year 1996, therefore, his claim for regularisation has not been considered. Feeling aggrieved out of that action, the husband of the petitioner filed a claim petition bearing Claim Petition No.1161 of 1996; Sunil Kumar Gupta vs. State of U.P. & others before the State Public Service Tribunal and the said claim petition was dismissed in default on 28.08.2009. Despite the aforesaid claim petition being dismissed for want of prosecution neither any decision has been taken in the case of the petitioner's husband nor he has been disengaged from the service, rather, he was permitted to discharge his duties till his demise on 05.09.2016.
Allahabad High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - R S Chauhan - Full Document

Sunil (Minor) vs State Of U.P. And Another on 1 December, 2020

The instant criminal revision under Section 102 of The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (herein-in-after referred to as 'Act') is directed against the order dated 03.01.2020 passed by Special Judge, (POCSO Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 9, Mathura in Juvenile Appeal No. 88/2019 (Sunil Vs. State of U.P.) in Case Crime No. 113 of 2019, under Section 8/21 N.D.P.S. Act, Police Station- Naujhil, District- Mathura by which appeal of the revisionist was dismissed and order dated 24.10.2019 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Mathura in Case No. 61/2019 in Case Crime No. 113 of 2019, under Section 8/21 N.D.P.S. Act by which prayer of release of revisionist was rejected.
Allahabad High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

The U.P. State Agro Industrial ... vs Ranveer Singh on 12 April, 2022

Learned Single Judge has thus concluded that the charges levelled against the respondent were not proved by adducing any evidence. Relying upon a Division Bench judgment in the case of Sunil Kumar Gupta Vs. State of U.P.; Writ Petition No.451 (SB) of 2014 the learned Single Judge has opined that the order impugned in the writ petition was completely against the proposition of law as enunciated by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sunil Kumar Gupta (supra).
Allahabad High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 5 - D K Upadhyaya - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next