Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.37 seconds)
Documents citing Gurdiyal Singh Dead Th.Lrs vs Addl.Director, Panchayats, Punjab on 15 September, 2014

Gram Panchayat Vill Mulepur vs Prem Singh & Ors on 16 February, 2015

[30]. The ingredients of Section 2(g)(viii) are also required to be answered on the basis of aforesaid phenomenon of banjar qadim. Individual cultivating possession of even co-sharers cannot be presumed with the entry of banjar qadim in column No.8 of the jamabandi. In the absence of any evidence of partition, no finding can be given whether co-sharers are in possession according to their shares or not. The aforesaid jamabandi further reveals that the land is exempted from land revenue/bachh which further negates the applicability of Section 2(g)(viii) as the land was not assessed to land revenue. On the aforesaid aspect reliance can be placed on 2012 Volume 3 RCR (Civil) 289 titled as Gurdev Singh (deceased) through LRs vs. Additional Director, Panchayat, Punjab and another.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 1 - R M Singh - Full Document

Manish Paliya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 30 April, 2016

"There is no individual act of the present applicant, hence, the applicant cannot be tried for commission of offences punishable under Section 302/34 and 307/34 of I.P.C. In support of his contentions learned counsel relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Piara Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in (1980)2 SCC 401and in the case of Gurdiyal Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in AIR 1995 SCC 2468.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Manish Paliya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 January, 2016

There is no individual act of the present applicant, hence, the applicant cannot be tried for commission of offences punishable under Section 302/34 and 307/34 of I.P.C. In support of his contentions learned counsel relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Piara Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in (1980)2 SCC 401and in the case of Gurdiyal Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in AIR 1995 SCC 2468.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Manish Paliya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 October, 2015

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the application has been prosecuted for commission of offences punishable under Section 302 and 307/34 of I.P.C. r/w Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that their were 3 accused persons, initially against whom the offences were registered. Two accused persons namely Sanjay Paliya and Dinesh Demole, Vide judgment dated 30.9.2011 passed in Sessions Trial No. 146/2008 were acquitted from the charges. It is alleged that the present applicant and Dinesh Demole caught hold the deceased and Sanjay Paliya had fired gun shot which hit on the head of the deceased who was died. Mr. Sanjay also fired at Sudesh Jain and tried to kill them. Both the accused persons have been acquitted from the charges vide judgment. It is further contended that the present applicant has been charged under Section 34 of IPC. There is no individual act of the present applicant, hence, the applicant cannot be tried for commission of offences punishable under Section 302/34 and 307/34 of I.P.C. In support of his contentions learned counsel relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Piara Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in (1980)2 SCC 401 and in the case of Gurdiyal Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in AIR 1995 SCC 2468.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1