Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 210 (2.40 seconds)
Documents citing Sukhdev Singh Gill vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 19 October, 2000

Abid vs State (Nct Of Delhi) on 3 November, 2025

State of Bihar39, o. Rajendra Shantaram Todankar v. State of Maharashtra And Others40, p. Najabhai Desurbhai Wagh v. Valerabhai Deganbhai Vagh and Others41, q. Sarwan Singh and Others v. State of Punjab42, r. Pankaj Sharma v. State of NCT of Delhi43 s. Sukhdev Singh v. State of Punjab44, t. Molu and others v. State of Haryana45, 32 (2024) 3 SCC 164 33 (2012) 6 SCC 589 34 (2016) 16 SCC 418 35 (2004) 7 SCC 422 36 2011 SCC OnLine Del 4517 37 (2014) 12 SCC 389 38 (2023) 10 SCC 181 39 (1989) 3 SCC 5 40 (2003) 2 SCC 257 41 (2017) 3 SCC 261 42 (1978) 4 SCC 111 43 In CRL.A. 255/2015 and connected matters 44 1992 Supp (2) SCC 470 45 (1976) 4 SCC 362 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SHIWANI NEGI CRL.A. 260/2023 & connected matters Page 41 of 129 Signing Date:03.11.2025 20:46:24 u. Gurwinder Singh Alias Sonu and others v. State of Punjab and Another46, v. Daulat v. The State (Govt. of NCT Delhi)47, w. Krishan Kumar @ Monu v. State48, x. Vineet Kumar Chauhan v. State of Uttar Pradesh49,
Delhi High Court Cites 85 - Cited by 0 - A Sharma - Full Document

Arjan Singh & Ors vs State Of Punjab on 26 November, 2014

Learned State counsel has no objection, if the aforesaid application is allowed and the present regular first appeal be disposed of in terms of judgments dated 3.8.2010 (Annexure A/1) passed in RFA No.955 of 2002 titled as Sukhdev Singh vs. Punjab State and dated 28.1.2010 (Annexure A/2) passed in RFA No.2348 of 1998 tilted as Kapoor Singh vs. The State of Punjab and another.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - A Rawal - Full Document

Sukhdev Singh vs . State on 3 March, 2010

6. The Ld. counsel for petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is an electrician having a small shop in Vishnu Garden area where due to sealing of shops the work and earnings of petitioner have been adversely affected but Ld MM has failed to take note of this fact and re-assessed his income @ Rs.4,500/- p.m. as against the existing income of Rs.3,000/- which was assessed while passing the earlier order dated 07.01.02. He has further submitted that assessment of increase in income is hypothetical and without basis. I find that order assessing income of petitioner at Rs.3,000/- was done vide order dated 07.01.02 and the impugned order enhancing it by 50% was passed on 09.07.08 i.e. after 6 ½ years. Thus, it was not unreasonable on the part of Ld. MM to assess the income of petitioner working as Electrician at Rs.4,500/- p.m. because even the income of a daily wage earner also increased at least to that extent with the -:5:- Cr.R.No.35/08 Sukhdev Singh Vs. State passage of time. Thus, I do not find any illegality, impropriety or irregularity in assessment of income of petitioner at Rs.4,500/- per month.
Delhi District Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sukhdev Singh vs State Of Pb.Etc on 16 October, 2015

3. The petitioner was not granted the benefit of Army services rendered by him during the emergency period for the purpose of seniority, promotion, increments and was also deprived of the seniority for which he was entitled under the De Mobilized Armed Forces Personnel (Reservation of vacancies in the Punjab State Non Technical Services) Rules, 1968. The petitioner feeling aggrieved approached this Court by filing CWP No.1257 of 1986 titled as Sukhdev Singh Vs. State of Punjab and the said writ petition was allowed vide order dated 04.02.1988, wherein this Court had directed that the services of ASHOK KUMAR 2015.10.21 17:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CWP No.2102 of 2001 (O&M) 4 the petitioner may be regularized as Clerk by taking the date of his entry into service on 19.01.1963 and to maintain the continuity of his service from the said date onwards for the purpose of increments, fixation of pay and by treating him on duty from 20.04.1984 to 19.06.1985 and further the Military Service rendered by the petitioner during the emergency period from 19.01.1963 to 10.01.1968 and from 03.12.1971 to 25.03.1997 and also grant the petitioner handicapped allowances which were permissible to the handicapped employees of the Punjab Government as per Rules and assign the benefit of seniority as Clerk from his entry into service and also the benefits of promotion on the basis of his length of service and also to deliver all his documents relating to Military Service, Pension, Bank Passbook which were in the custody of the respondents and the said observation made by this Court was to be complied with within a period of three months from the date of passing of the order.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - J Chauhan - Full Document

Ram Kumar And Another vs State Of Punjab on 28 November, 2013

Revision No.412 of 2004 titled as, "Sukhdev Singh vs. State of Punjab and others", as both the cases have arisen out of the Bhatia Shalini 2013.12.19 16:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CRA NO.S-653-SB OF 2003(O&M) -2- same incident and judgment. For convenience, the facts are being taken from CRA No. S-653-SB of 2003.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - K C Puri - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next