Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.65 seconds)
Documents citing Ramkishan And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others on 13 February, 2013

Sonu vs State Of Haryana And Others on 16 May, 2019

Similarly, in another judgment of Division Bench of this Court in case Ramkishan vs State of Haryana and others 2016(4) RCR (Civil) 633, it was held that the election petition filed after the lapse of statutory period of 30 days from the date of declaration of result is liable to be dismissed being beyond the period of limitation. It was also held in said judgment that the election petition was filed after the lapse of statutory period of 30 days and in the absence of any specific provision empowering the court to entertain the election petition beyond the statutory period of 30 days after condoning the delay in filing the same, the petition was dismissed being time barred and it was held that the election petition was rightly dismissed by the Civil Court.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt. Seema @ Savita Devi vs Surender Singh Chauhan And Others on 30 April, 2019

With regard to condonation of delay in the filing of respondents No.1 and 2's election petition by taking recourse to Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (for short, the 1963 Act), a Division Bench of this Court in Ramkishan's case (supra) has authoritatively held that the provisions of Section 5 of the 1963 Act would not apply to the filing of an election petition under Section 176(1) of the Act. Paragraphs 7 to 10 of the said judgment read as under: -
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 1 - D Sibal - Full Document

Basantilal vs Collector / District Magistrate The ... on 17 February, 2016

21. The judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation & another (supra), has been subsequently considered by the Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs. Shivraj(AIR 2014 SC 2242); Bimladevi vs. State of Haryana [(2014) 6 SCC 583]; Bharat Kumar vs. State of Haryana[(2014) 6 SCC 586]; M/s Radiance Fincap (Civil Appeal No.4283/2011), Velaxan Kumar vs. Union of India(AIR 2015 SC 1462); Karnail Kaur vs. State of Punjab(2015 AIR SCW 1980; Ramkishan v. State of Haryana (AIR 2015 SC 440) and Rajiv Chowdhrie HUF vs. Union of India(AIR 2015 SC 614).
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 16 - Full Document

Ruda Khan @ Luda Khan vs State Of M.P. on 3 April, 2018

14. Learned counsel for the appellants Shri Mahaveer Pathak and Shri A. K. Jain submits that on perusal of the impugned judgment, conviction of the appellants has been recorded on the basis of circumstantial evidence, but as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kansa Behera v. State of Orissa as reported in AIR 1987 1507 so also the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Raghunath v. State of Haryana with Ramkishan & Others v. State of Haryana & Another as reported in AIR 2003 SC 165, the case is to be proved beyond doubt, failing which the accused are entitled to acquittal.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 1 - V Agarwal - Full Document

Firoj Khan vs State Of M.P. on 3 April, 2018

14. Learned counsel for the appellants Shri Mahaveer Pathak and Shri A. K. Jain submits that on perusal of the impugned judgment, conviction of the appellants has been recorded on the basis of circumstantial evidence, but as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kansa Behera v. State of Orissa as reported in AIR 1987 1507 so also the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Raghunath v. State of Haryana with Ramkishan & Others v. State of Haryana & Another as reported in AIR 2003 SC 165, the case is to be proved beyond doubt, failing which the accused are entitled to acquittal.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 10 - V Agarwal - Full Document
1