Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 84 (1.16 seconds)
Documents citing Hari Singh Etc vs State Of Haryana on 13 April, 1993

Geep Industrial Syndicate Ltd. vs Collector Of C. Ex. on 1 April, 1994

16. The matter had yet to be finally decided between the parties. Therefore, the Supreme Court's observations in the case of UOI v. Paras Laminates (P) Ltd. - 1990 (49) E.L.T. 322 (SC) are not applicable to the situation before us. Similarly the case of Hari Singh v. State of Haryana - 1993 (66) E.L.T. 23 (SC) relied upon by the applicants, the matter did. not relate to the passing of interlocutory orders. It was a murder case in which earlier a SLP had been dismissed. The Hon'ble Supreme Court ruled out the applicability of the doctrine of precedent even in such a case. It was observed in para 10 of their judgment that before any such principle is applied, it must be held that the earlier order passed amounted to a judgment or an affirmness of the findings about the manner of the occurrence, nature of offence committed etc. They held in para 12 that : "The doctrine of precedent is not applicable to an order passed by this Court rejecting a special leave petition. Any such order cannot be held to be stare-decisis so that it is binding on us".
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 10 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Sher Singh And Another vs The State Of Haryana on 18 February, 2009

However, learned Reference Court relied upon copy of award Ex.R2 tendered by the respondents-State whereby in respect of land of village Bhainsa Tibba acquired vide notification issued on 27.8.1981 of an area more than 400 acres, this Court in RFA No.572 of 1986 (Surinder Paul Vs. State of Haryana) awarded compensation @ Rs.60,000/- per acre wherein this Court did not place reliance upon decision rendered in RFA No.1782 of 1986 (Hari Singh Vs. State of Haryana) vide which compensation @ Rs.1,50,000/- per acre was awarded in respect of land of village Bhainsa Tibba.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - R K Jain - Full Document

Archana & Ors vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 7 March, 2025

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent- State does not dispute that the source of salary from the contingency 2 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 11-03-2025 23:37:02 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:033089 CWP-1091-2004 -3- fund was the sole reason for denial of claim for regularization to the petitioner and that the claim of the petitioner would be covered in his favour by the Division Bench of this Court in the matter of "Hari Singh versus State of Haryana and others".
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S. Rcn Constructions Pvt. Ltd vs The State Of Assam And 3 Ors on 30 June, 2022

In the case of Hari Shingh Vs State of Haryana reported in (1993) 3 SCC 114, it was held that in a judicial system that is administered by court, one of the primary principles to keep note of is that the court under the same jurisdiction must have similar opinions regarding similar questions, issues and circumstances. If opinions given on similar legal issues are inconsistent than instead of achieving harmony in the judicial system, it will result in judicial chaos. The decision regarding a particular case that has been held Page No.# 63/72 for a long time cannot be disturbed merely because of possibility of the existence of another view.
Gauhati High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

B4 Integrated Facility vs J.I.T.F. Urban Waste Management on 28 November, 2022

As per the judgment in the case of Hari Singh Vs. State of Haryana [2002 SCC OnLine P&H 177] of Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana, permission by the Magistrate, to examine a witness u/s 311 CrPC was in a way to review his own earlier order of closing of prosecution evidence and permission to examine the prosecution witness afresh would by itself be against his earlier order. In terms of Section 397(2) of CrPC, powers of revision cannot be exercised in relation to an interlocutory order passed in any appeal, inquiry, trial or other proceedings. In the present revision petitions, the revisionists have challenged the impugned orders dt.17.09.2021 and 24.05.2022, which do not in any manner terminate the main proceedings but are orders of purely interim or temporary nature and hence, fall within the ambit of Interlocutory orders. Thus, the present criminal revisions are not maintainable in view of the bar provided under Section 397(2) of CrPC.
Delhi District Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next