Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.57 seconds)
Documents citing Mukesh Rao vs The High Court Of Punjab & Haryana And ... on 18 December, 2012

Naresh Kumar Makkar vs Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. ... on 3 July, 2024

14. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner also referred to the judgment of this Court passed in CWP-2-2012 titled as "Mukesh Vs. State of Haryana and others" decided on 01.08.2012 and also the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Chief Security Officer and others Vs. Singasan Rabi Das" 1991(1) SCC 729 and "Jaswant Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others", 1991(1) SCC 362, to contend that when there is a violation of principles of natural justice on the face of it, then the High Court in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can always exercise its jurisdiction by ignoring the alternate remedy available to the petitioner.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - J S Puri - Full Document

Mukesh Kumar vs State Of Haryana on 31 October, 2022

The Prayer in this petition under Section 482 Cr.PC is for setting aside the order dated 31.08.2021 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak in CRM No.236 of 2021 titled as Mukesh Vs. State of Haryana vide which the application under Section 451 of Cr.PC for release of the vehicle bearing Registration No.HR-12U-7458 on superdari has been dismissed and with a consequent prayer to direct the release of the vehicle to the petitioner on superdari.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - J S Bedi - Full Document

Gurbaj Singh vs Union Of India And Ors on 19 October, 2015

As regards the issue of alternate remedy, the respondents have alleged that the petitioner should have availed the remedy before the Indian VINOD KUMAR 2015.10.19 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.20868 of 2015 [ 24 ] **** Hockey Congress by preferring an appeal etc., but in the given facts and circumstances where with the passing time, the Indian Hockey Team continues to represent the country in various matches, it is not found to be a speedy and efficacious remedy and in this regard, I rely upon the decision of this Court in Mukesh's case (supra) in which it has been held that "the alternate remedy has to equally efficient and adequate. It is equally well settled that existence of an alternate remedy is not an absolute bar to grant relief under Article 226. It is a circumstance which the court has to take into consideration in exercising its discretionary power but it does not take away the jurisdiction of the court to grant relief under Article 226, that too in exceptional circumstances. Thus, where the alternative remedy, may be of appeal, revision or review, is too dilatory or difficult to give quick relief, then it would not be a bar to relief under Article 226".
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 1 - R K Jain - Full Document

Naveen vs State Of Haryana on 19 March, 2024

Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that two of the co-accused, namely, Mukesh and Birender have been granted the concession of regular bail by this Court vide order dated 11.01.2024 passed in CRM-M- 53170-2023 titled as 'Mukesh Vs. State of Haryana' and CRM-M-55059-2023 titled as 'Birender Vs. State of Haryana,' respectively. The trial Court has examined the complainant and four more witnesses who have not supported the case of the prosecution and learned Public Prosecutor has declared them hostile. He further submits that the petitioner is behind the bars since 07.03.2023.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Lalit Kumar vs State Of Haryana And Others on 28 April, 2025

In this regard he has also referred to three judgments i.e. LPA No. 2018 of 2019 titled as 'Jyoti Sharma versus State of Haryana and others' decided on 22.03.2024, CWP No. 30035 of 2017 titled as 'Mukesh versus State of Haryana and others' decided on 03.03.2020 and CWP No. 14001of 2020 titled as 'Shivam Rohilla versus State of Haryana and others' decided on 22.02.2024. He also submitted that rather five posts are still vacant. Instead of complying with the judgment for considering the petitioners of the writ petition for being appointed on their own merits and subject to the qualification they wrongfully displaced the present applicants and terminated their services which was beyond their power and beyond 3 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 30-04-2025 23:45:27 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:055857 CM-3078-CWP-2025 in/and 4 RA-CW-104-2025 in CWP-22114-2023 their jurisdiction and was not in compliance of the judgment of this Court in letter and spirit.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - J S Puri - Full Document

Mukesh vs State Of Haryana --Respondent on 29 April, 2014

TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA.J This order shall dispose of CRM No. M-9469 of 2014 (Mukesh Vs. State of Haryana) as also CRM No. M-10607 of 2014 (Ashok Vs. State of Haryana) as both these petitions have been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C seeking the benefit of regular bail to the petitioners pending trial in case F.I.R. No.211 dated 29.06.2012 under sections 302, 120-B/34 I.P.C and sections 25/54/59 of Arms Act, registered at Police Station, Sadar Rohtak, District Rohtak.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - T S Dhindsa - Full Document

Rajesh vs State Of Haryana --Respondent on 28 May, 2014

TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA.J This order shall dispose of CRM No. M-4858 of 2014 (Rajesh Vs. State of Haryana), CRM No. M-11902 of 2014 (Mukesh Vs. State of Haryana), CRM No. M-12987 of 2014 (Kapil @ Chintu Vs. State of Haryana) and CRM No. M-11811 of 2014 (Phool Kumar Vs. State of Haryana) as all these petitions have been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C praying for the benefit of regular bail to the petitioners in case F.I.R. No.129 dated 1.6.2013 under sections 399, 402 I.P.C read with sections 25, 54, 59 of Arms Act, registered at Police Station, Lakhan Majra, District Rohtak.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - T S Dhindsa - Full Document
1   2 Next