Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 22 (0.59 seconds)
Documents citing Baljit Singh Bhullar And Anr. vs Hon. Speaker, Punjab Vidhan Sabha And ... on 29 May, 1997

Lakhbir Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab And Others on 7 November, 2025

7. At this stage, it would be appropriate to direct respondent No.2 to decide the representation dated 12.08.2025 (Annexure P-5) in view of the law laid down by this Court in CWP-9175-2000, titled as "Daljit Singh Bhullar and others Vs. State of Punjab and others" (Annexure P-2) within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Babulal Marandi vs The Tribunal Of The Speaker Under ... on 24 January, 2023

In the case of Keisham Meghachandra Singh (Supra.), the term "quia timet" has been discussed in detail and has been held that quia timet injunction is granted to prevent the occurrence of an actionable wrong or to prevent repetition of an actionable wrong. There are at least two necessary ingredients for a quia timet action. One is that there must be proof of imminent danger and second is that there must also be proof that the apprehended damage will, if it comes, be very substantial and the apprehended danger is irreparable in nature.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 35 - Cited by 0 - R Shankar - Full Document

Kuldeep Bishnoi vs Speaker Haryana Vidhan Sabha & Others on 9 October, 2014

33. The incorrectness of the view expressed in Baljit Singh Bhuller's case operates by implied overruling by the reasoning adopted by the Supreme Court in Jagjit Singh's case and its express ruling that Full Bench decision in the Punjab case to be wrong. We can arrive by the same inference by adverting to another judgment of the Supreme Court. Rajendra Singh Rana and other Vs. Swami Prasad Maurya and others (2007) 4 SCC 270 was a case of split in the party where 13 MLAs of Bahujan Samaj Party who lent support to Samajwadi Party to form the Government. The leader of the BSP legislature party filed a petition under Article 191 for disqualification. It was contested by 37 MLAs said to be on behalf of 40 MLAs elected on BSP ticket requesting the Speaker PANKAJ KUMARto recognize the split on the basis that 1/3rd of the members of BSP 2014.10.09 14:18 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.2900 of 2013 -37- legislative party consisting of 109 legislators had in a body separated from the party pursuant to a meeting held at MLAs' hostel, Lucknow. The Speaker verified that 37 members who had signed the application presented to him had in fact signed it, since they were physically present before him. Over-ruling the objection of the BSP, the Speaker passed an order ordering a split in the BSP party on the arithmetic that 37 out of 109 comprised 1/3rd of the members of the legislative party. This group which had been known as Lok Tantrik Bahujan Dal was short lived, for, the Dal had merged with SP party. The Speaker did not decide the application made by BSP seeking disqualification of 13 MLAs who were part of 37 that appeared before the Speaker and postponed the decision. On the subsequent date, 3 more MLAs supported 37 who had appeared before him and the Speaker accepted their claim as well. The decision of the Speaker was put to a challenge through a writ petition filed to the High Court of the judicature at Allahabad. The decision before the High Court had a chequered career and it is not necessary for us to deal with it except to refer to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the said case. The Supreme Court held that decisions taken by the Speaker in terms of Para 3, Para 4 or Para 2 of the 10th Schedule enjoyed a qualified immunity as provided in para 6 of the Tenth Schedule (emphasis supplied).
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 3 - K Kannan - Full Document

Baljit Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab And Another on 4 September, 2009

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the dispute between the parties has been compromised with the intervention of the well-wishers and keeping in view that peace and harmony is maintained. The compromise arrived at between the parties has been placed on record as Annexure P-3, according to which, respondent no. 2 Smt. Jaspreet Kaur, mother of Ratanjot Kaur and other respondents in CRM No. M-1077 of 2009 titled as Baljit Singh and another vs State of Punjab and others filed by petitioner no. 1- Baljit Singh herein and one Ratanjot Kaur, for protection of their life and liberty, had accepted the marriage of petitioner no. 1 and Ratanjot Kaur and stated they will not interfere in their married life. It has further been agreed between the parties that Smt. Jaspreet Kaur has no objection in case the FIR in question is quashed. He further submitted that since the matter has been compromised, the FIR deserves to be quashed.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 1 - R Bindal - Full Document

Gian Chand And Others vs State Of Punjab And Others on 22 August, 2008

In this petition, the disputed questions of facts have been raised, which cannot be gone into in the writ jurisdiction of this Court. This CWP No. 13680 of 2008 -2- Court in Baljit Singh v. State of Punjab and others (CWP No. 13643 of 2008, decided on August 22, 2008), has held that in view of Clause (b) of Article 243-O of the Constitution of India and Section 76 of the Punjab State Election Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'), election of Sarpanch is to be challenged by filing an election petition under section 76 on the grounds mentioned in Section 89 of the Act. In the facts and circumstances of the case, no exceptional case is made out to invoke the extra ordinary powers of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the election of Sarpanch. Thus, we do not find any ground to entertain this petition.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Davinder Kaur And Others vs State Of Punjab And Others on 22 August, 2008

In this petition, the disputed questions of facts have been raised, which cannot be gone into in the writ jurisdiction of this Court. This Court in Baljit Singh v. State of Punjab and others (CWP No. 13643 of CWP No. 13654 of 2008 -2- 2008, decided on August 22, 2008), has held that in view of Clause (b) of Article 243-O of the Constitution of India and Section 76 of the Punjab State Election Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'), election of Sarpanch is to be challenged by filing an election petition under section 76 on the grounds mentioned in Section 89 of the Act. In the facts and circumstances of the case, no exceptional case is made out to invoke the extra ordinary powers of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the election of Sarpanch. Thus, we do not find any ground to entertain this petition.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Bhim Sen And Others vs State Of Punjab And Others on 22 August, 2008

In this petition, the disputed questions of facts have been raised, which cannot be gone into in the writ jurisdiction of this Court. This Court in Baljit Singh v. State of Punjab and others (CWP No. 13643 of CWP No. 13470 of 2008 -2- 2008, decided on August 22, 2008), has held that in view of Clause (b) of Article 243-O of the Constitution of India and Section 76 of the Punjab State Election Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'), election of Sarpanch is to be challenged by filing an election petition under section 76 on the grounds mentioned in Section 89 of the Act. In the facts and circumstances of the case, no exceptional case is made out to invoke the extra ordinary powers of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the election of Sarpanch. Thus, we do not find any ground to entertain this petition.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Hira Singh And Others vs The State Of Punjab And Others on 22 August, 2008

In this petition, the disputed questions of facts have been raised, which cannot be gone into in the writ jurisdiction of this Court. This Court in Baljit Singh v. State of Punjab and others (CWP No. 13643 of 2008, decided on August 22, 2008), has held that in view of Clause (b) of CWP No. 13751 of 2008 -2- Article 243-O of the Constitution of India and Section 76 of the Punjab State Election Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'), election of Sarpanch is to be challenged by filing an election petition under section 76 on the grounds mentioned in Section 89 of the Act. In the facts and circumstances of the case, no exceptional case is made out to invoke the extra ordinary powers of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the election of Sarpanch. Thus, we do not find any ground to entertain this petition.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next