Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 75 (1.27 seconds)
Documents citing Chandra Pal Singh And Ors. vs State Of U.P. And Ors. on 19 April, 1985

Pushpendra Kumar And Another vs State Of U.P. And 2 Other on 15 April, 2026

9. Accordingly, the order dated 30.06.2025 passed by the Sessions Judge, District Bulandshahr, in Criminal Revision No. 174 of 2025 (Chandra Pal Singh vs. State of U.P. and others), as well as the order dated 29.01.2025 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Siyana, District Bulandshahr, in Case No. 6626 of 2023 (State vs. Pushpendra and others) under Section 145 Cr.P.C., are upheld.
Allahabad High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shriram Jaiswal vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 16 July, 2019

Insofar as the decision in the case of Chandra Pal Singh Vs. State of U.P. & 4 Ors. (supra) is concerned from a bare perusal of the order dated 27.05.2014, it appears that the State could not point out any provision of law to resist that petition. Though the SLP against that decision has been dismissed, the submissions similar to those advanced by the learned Standing Counsel, in the present case, appear to have been raised (in that case), only upon review petition being filed. It came to be rejected on a technical plea that the same would fall outside the scope of review.
Allahabad High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 1 - S D Singh - Full Document

Chandra Pal vs State Of U.P. And Another on 12 February, 2021

26. Accordingly, present application succeeds and is allowed. Impugned orders dated 18.09.2020 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate/Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) Court No.3, Aligarh in Case Crime No. 338 of 2019 under Section 62, 63, 72 U.P. Excise Act, Police Station- Akbarabad, District-Aligarh as well as order dated 31.10.2020 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/POCSO Act, Court No.02, Aligarh  in Criminal Revision No. 136 of 2020 (Chandra Pal Vs. State of U.P.) under Sections-396, 397 Cr.P.C. are hereby quashed. Matter is remitted to concerned Magistrate to decide release application of applicant afresh in the light of observations made herein above within a period of one month from the date of production of a certified copy/ computer generated copy of this order which shall be filed by applicant before Court below by means of an affidavit.
Allahabad High Court Cites 50 - Cited by 6 - R Misra - Full Document

Gita Lama Tamang vs State Of (G.N.C.T.) Of Delhi [Along With ... on 15 November, 2006

10. This is well settled that there is a statutory presumption of correctness of official acts in their favor. This was so held in authorities. Mohd. Hussain v. State 1989 (3) Crimes 679, The State of Bihar v. Basawan Singh , Paramjit Singh and another v. The State , Shanker v. State of U.P. , Modan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1978) 4 SCC 435, Dalbir Kaur and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Pal Singh and Ors. v. State of U.P. 1979 Cr.L.J. 917.
Delhi High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 22 - J M Malik - Full Document

Gurminder Singh vs Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence on 27 November, 2006

15. This is well settled that there is a statutory presumption of correctness of official acts in their favor. This was so held in authorities. Mohd. Hussain v. State 1989 (3) Crimes 679, The State of Bihar v. Basawan Singh , Paramjit Singh and Anr. v. The State , Shanker v. State of U.P. , Modan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1978) 4 SCC 435, Dalbir Kaur and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Pal Singh and Ors. v. State of U.P. 1979 Cr.L.J. 917.
Delhi High Court Cites 36 - Cited by 5 - J M Malik - Full Document

Pravin Kasana & Others vs State Of U.P. on 5 November, 2012

Relying on the decision of this court in the case of Chandra Pal v. State of U.P.(supra), it was contended that in that case also there were two reports, one with regard to filing of the charge-sheet and the other with regard to non-filing of the charge-sheet, but as it was proved that on the same day charge sheet was filed, the court took the view that the applicant was not entitled to the benefit of the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 167 of the Code.
Allahabad High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - M Misra - Full Document

Akhilesh Kumar vs State Of U.P. And Another on 4 March, 2022

9. Learned counsel for the revisionist has placed reliance on the case of Chandra Pal vs. State of U.P. in Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. No.1325 of 2021 decided on 21.02.2021 and Murad Ali vs. State of U.P. and two ors in Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. No.21547 of 2021 decided on 23.11.2021. In the aforesaid case, the learned Single Judge has held that Magistrate has jurisdiction to release the vehicle during confiscation proceedings but in view of the law propounded by the Division Bench of Allahabad High Court this view cannot be adopted.
Allahabad High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Krishnamoorthy vs The State

9. Learned counsel for the revisionist has placed reliance on the case of Chandra Pal vs. State of U.P. in Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. No.1325 of 2021 decided on 21.02.2021 and Murad Ali vs. State of U.P. and two ors in Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. No.21547 of 2021 decided on 23.11.2021. In the aforesaid case, the learned Single Judge has held that Magistrate has jurisdiction to release the vehicle during confiscation proceedings but in view of the law propounded by the Division Bench of Allahabad High Court this view cannot be adopted.
Madras High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - A D Chandira - Full Document

Ashok Pratap Singh vs State Of Uttar Pradesh And Ors. on 28 May, 2004

21. This Court in the catena of decisions, i.e., in Swatantra Kumar Agrawal v. Managing Director, U.P. Financial Corporation, Kanpur and Anr., 1993 (3) AWC 1497; L.S. Tripathi v. Banaras Hindu University and Ors., (1993) 1 UPLBEC 448; West U.P. Sugar Mills Association, 39 Nehru Place, New Delhi and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors., 1994 (1) AWC 50; Khacher Singh v. State of U.P. and Ors., AIR 1995 All 338; Saheb Lal v. Assistant Registrar (Administration), Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi and Ors.,(1995) 1 UPLBEC 31; State Bank of India Staff Association and Anr. v. State Bank of India, and Ors., (1996) 4 SCC 378; Chandra Pal Singh v. State of U.P. and Ors., 1998 (2) AWC 1369; Rakesh Kumar Verma v. State of U.P. and Ors., 2000 (4) AWC 2722; Mool Shanker Singh v. Regional Manager, Punjab National Bank, Varanasi and Anr., 2002 (5) AWC 4057; and Rajesh Khanna v. Collector, Hamirpur and Ors., 2003 (2) AWC 1326, considered the issue at length and also interpreted the provisions of Rule 7 of Chapter XXII of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 which bars the filing of the second writ petition on the same cause of action and held that the second petition for the same cause of action not to be maintainable and filing successive writ petitions for the same cause of action is not only against the public policy, but also amounts to abuse of process of the Court.
Allahabad High Court Cites 52 - Cited by 14 - B S Chauhan - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next