Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (5.15 seconds)
Documents citing Pritpal Singh Rattan Singh vs The Chief Commissioner Of Delhi And Anr. on 3 February, 1965

Darshan Lal vs State Of Punjab on 7 November, 1978

35. Yet another argument, advanced in Pritipal Singh Rattan Singh' case (AIR 1966 Puni 4) (FB) (supra) and reiterated before us, that the impugned notification made under S. 3(14) of the Excise Act declaring all spirituous preparations containing more than 20 per cent proof strength of alcohol for the Purposes of the Act was violative of Art. 301 of the Constitution, was repelled by the Bench on the ground that the Excise Act being existing law including S. 3(14) thereof, under which the impugned notification had been issued, was thus saved by Art. 305 of the Constitution from an attack based on Arts. 301 and 303 of the Constitution of India.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 39 - Cited by 21 - Full Document

The Indore Malwa United Mills Ltd. And ... vs Union Of India And Ors. on 25 May, 1973

(68) The copies of the said Gazette as per the established practice of the Government of India Press and the practice obtaining in the office of the Manager of Publication Delhi-6 were placed in the relevant wrappers which are addressed to the various Ministries, Departments. Libraries and other subscribers as per list supplied by the Manager of Publication, Delhi-6, (annexed, to the affidavit was given a list of the addresses supplied by the Manager of Publication Delhi-6). It is claimed that the Act of placing the printed gazette in the wrapper completes the Act of Publication which was complete on 31-10-' 1972. It is further submitted that the gazette so printed and placed in wrappers duly signed by the Manager, Publication effects the necessary publication. The formal dispatch, however, took place on 1-11-1972 on 11.35 A.M. (69) Tt is thus the case of the respondent that the gazette notification was printed on 31st of October, 1972, as it purports to show. Now section 81 of the Indian Evidence Act states that the Court shall presume the genuineness of every document purporting to be.. .the official gazette. The official gazette containing the order under section 18A of the Act of 1951 with respect to the petitioners' undertaking purports to have been printed and published on 31st of October, 1972. Having regard to the presumption under section 81 of the Evidence Act read with section 114(e) of the Indian Evidence Act there could be no escape from the conclusion that it must be taken to have been printed and published on the date which it bear?, namely 31st of October, 1972 and would thus comply with the statute which only requires that an order should be notified in the official gazette and the notification will come into force if nothing else is said, on the date of its own publication vide Pritpal Singh Rattan Singh v. The Chief Commissioner of Delhi and another .
Delhi High Court Cites 76 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Umesh Keshri vs The State Of Bihar on 8 October, 2025

10. Thus, taking a holistic view of the facts and circumstances of the present case as discussed hereinabove, considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and for the foregoing reasons, at this stage of consideration of suspension of sentence, we are of the prima facie view that the impugned judgment of conviction does not appear to be one which may not be held to be sustainable. Moreover, it has to be kept in mind that at a post-conviction stage, the presumption of innocence comes to an end as has been held in the case of Pritpal Singh vs. State of U.P. and Anr., reported in (2020) 8 SCC 645. Thus, we find that prima facie, a case for suspension of order of sentence and grant of bail during the pendency of the appeal has not been made out. Accordingly, the said prayer for suspension of sentence and grant of bail qua the appellants is rejected.
Patna High Court - Orders Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - M K Shah - Full Document

E-837/14/06 Rattan Singh(Deceased) vs Ravel Singh(Deceased). 1/10 on 24 November, 2018

The petitioner has relied upon one judgment dt. 23.10.74 passed in the case of Rattan Singh Vs. Chief Settlement Commissioner. The judgment is Ex. PW1/16 and the decree is Ex. PW1/17. Vide the said judgment, the petitioner was held to be the owner of the premises in question. The petitioner has also filed certified copy of the order dt. 17.09.1977, vide which the appeal filed against the judgment dt. 23.10.1974 was dismissed. All these documents have been duly proved by the petitioner. The petitioner has also examined one witness namely Moinuddin, Legal Assistant BSES who has deposed as PW2 and filed documents which are Ex. PW2/1 to PW2/17. The witness had very categorically stated that in the records of BSES the name of owner has been mentioned as Umrao Singh and name of the tenant has been mentioned as Ravel Singh i.e. respondent no.1. He had also stated that name of consumer was changed from Sh. Ravel Singh i.e. respondent no.1 to Sh. Puran Chand i.e. respondent no.2. PW4 Sh. Gulshan Kumar, Zonal Inspector, MCD had also deposed and stated that as per their record Sh. Rattan Singh i.e. the petitioner is the owner of the property in question. The record brought by PW4 is Ex. PW4/1.
Delhi District Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shri Ravel Singh vs Shri Rattan Singh Son Of Late Shri ... on 4 December, 2010

9- Respondent on the other hand has claimed ownership of the suit premises on the basis of decree dated 23-10-1974 passed in suit No.88/67 (titled as Rattan Singh Vs. Chief Settlement Commissioner and others) by the court of Ms. Manju Goel, the then learned Sub Judge, Class I, Delhi. One of the specific issue in the aforesaid suit was as to whether the plaintiff i.e. Rattan Singh was the owner of the suit property. This issue was dealt with in para 15 of the judgement wherein it was held that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit property. In the said case, Ms. Manju Goel, Sub-Judge Ist Class (as she then was) had recorded the statement of Umrao Singh who had specifically stated that he had transferred the land in favour of Rattan Singh. An appeal was filed by Union of India against the jufdgement/decree passed by Ms.Manju Goel, which was dismissed by learned Additional District Judge vide judgement dated (RCT APPEAL No.--34/2010) (page 5 of 7) 17/9/1977. Therefore, the aforesaid finding with regard to the ownership of the suit property of Shri Rattan Singh had attained finality. This therefore, belies the case set up by the appellant No.1 that he had become owner of the suit premises having purchased the land underneath from one Umrao Singh.
Delhi District Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Habib And Anr vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 21 November, 2017

The Bench said nothing new while relying for convenience on previous case law developed in this Court in Gram Panchayat Kakran Vs. Additional Director of Consolidation, 1997 (4) RCR (Civil) 498; Rattan Singh Vs. Chief Settlement Commissioner, Haryana, 1978 PLJ 47 and Achhar Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 1979 PLJ 278. Lastly, Mr. Gupta relies on the decision in Kali Ram etc. Vs. Union of India & others, 1976 PLR 475 all of which judgments promote his case representing bona fide purchasers from the original allottee.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - R N Raina - Full Document

Rupinder Kaur vs State Of Punjab And Others on 8 October, 2012

Similar is the law laid down by Hon`ble Supreme Court of India in Pritpal Singh Vs. The State of Bihar and Anr. 2001(4) AICLR 749, where compromise was arrived at between the parties pending complaint in which it was agreed that the accused will pay certain amount to the respondents and would vacate the premises by the time stipulated. The terms of the compromise were not complied with. An application for cancellation of bail was filed. It was not averred therein that the accused had misused the liberty granted or that the prosecution was facing any difficulty because of the accused being on bail. The Magistrate cancelled CRR-293-2012 4 ..
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1