Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 34 (0.42 seconds)
Documents citing Chandu @ Chandra Prakash @ Manjeet Singh ... vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 18 February, 2021

Shashank Mishra vs State Of Up And 3 Others on 15 May, 2025

11. Notwithstanding the above, it is pertinent to note that the petitioner has approached this Court nearly one and a half years after the arrest. During this intervening period, his bail applications were rejected at multiple stages including by this Court. As such the instant matter is distinguishable with Manjeet Singh (Supra) and Sachin Soni (Supra). At no point prior to the present proceedings did the petitioner raise the issue of illegal arrest or violation of his constitutional rights.
Allahabad High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - M C Tripathi - Full Document

Deepak Sharma vs State Of Up And 6 Others on 14 March, 2024

(ii) issue, a writ, order or direction, in the nature of mandamus, directing the Respondent Authorities, to consider the claim of the petitioner for opening the seal cover envelop with regard to the promotion on the post of Dy.S.P., in accordance with the provision of Rule 5 (ii) & 16 of the Uttar Pradesh Police Service Rules - 2016, from the date similarly situated persons & Juniors to the petitioner have been granted promotion, with all consequential benefit, in view of the Law Laid- down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of R.K. Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 1991 Supp.
Allahabad High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - P Padia - Full Document

Surjan Singh vs State Of Up And 6 Others on 13 March, 2024

(ii) issue, a writ, order or direction, in the nature of mandamus, directing the Respondent Authorities, to consider the claim of the petitioner for promotion on the post of Dy.S.P., in accordance with the provision of Rule 5 (ii) & 16 of the Uttar Pradesh Police Service Rules - 2016, from the date similarly situated persons & Juniors to the petitioner have been granted promotion, with all consequential benefit, in view of the Law Laid- down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of R.K. Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 1991 Supp.
Allahabad High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - P Padia - Full Document

Arvind Harishchandra Chawria vs M/O Home Affairs on 19 February, 2024

9, In R.K. Singh v. State of UP and Ors. (2991) 17 ATC 341, it was observed that "once the adverse entries awarded to the appellant were expunged the applicant is entitled to Selection Grade with effect from January [, 1986, the date on which he was eligible for grant of Selection Grade." An identical situation arises in the present case as we see no merit a "3 OAIGUANTS in the objection raised by the respondent No.1, Union of India to reviewing the case of the applicant in the fight of the expunction of the adverse confidential remarks, We note that the respondent No.2, State of Maharashtra, in their reply has pointed out that since the applicant has became eligible for being considered for promotion to the IPS in the year 1978 in view of the changed circumstances in the State Service record, his representations were forwarded to the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs by letter dated 30.11.1991 with the recommendation that the applicant's case may again be placed before the Selection Committee with a view to assess whether he was fit to be included in the select list of SPS Officers for appointment to the IPS for the year 1978. But this recommendation was not accepted by the first respondent by the letter dated 22.04.1992. It is diffioult for us to accept the submission on behalf of respondent No.1 that the applicant is not entitled to relief, We see no merit in the plea of limitation which has been taised and the other points raised are covered by the decision of the Supreme Court to which he had adverted above.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Gaya Prasad Pandey vs State Of U.P. And 11 Others on 15 February, 2022

In the case of U.P. State Electricity Board and Another v. Kharak Singh and Another, R.K.Singh v. State of U.P. and Others and recently and in the case of Ramesh Kumar v. Union of India and Others, Supreme Court has considered the issue of giving consequential benefits to an employee who had been wholly illegally denied promotion and had been made junior to his juniors in the establishment for the fault of authorities.
Allahabad High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - A Kumar - Full Document

Ravi Shankar @ Ravi @ Ravi Shankar Tiwari vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 12 September, 2025

8. Learned counsel for petitioners has submitted that in these cases, the petitioners were in the judicial custody in Lalitpur and production warrants were served and petitioners were brought to the Court and Court permitted formal arrest and after that remand was granted, hence, no grounds of arrest have been communicated in the writing to the petitioners. Hon'ble Courts in the cases of Manjeet singh @ Inder @ Manjeet Singh Chana vs. State of U.P. and others reported in LAWS(ALL)-2025-4-9, Ashish Kakkar vs. Union of Territory of Chandigarh passed in Criminal Appeal No.1518 of 2025, Signature Not Verified Signed by: DHEERAJ PRATAP SINGH Signing time: 12-09-2025 18:19:31 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:44210 4 MCRC-35872-2025 Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Rajnikant Ojha passed in CRM (M) 1 of 2025 and Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Pankaj Bansal vs. Union of India and Others reported in (2024) 7 SCC 516 have held that non compliance of directions vitiate the whole proceedings and the petitioners are entitled for immediate release.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ravi Shankar @Ravi @ Ravi Shankar Tiwari vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 12 September, 2025

8. Learned counsel for petitioners has submitted that in these cases, the petitioners were in the judicial custody in Lalitpur and production warrants were served and petitioners were brought to the Court and Court permitted formal arrest and after that remand was granted, hence, no grounds of arrest have been communicated in the writing to the petitioners. Hon'ble Courts in the cases of Manjeet singh @ Inder @ Manjeet Singh Chana vs. State of U.P. and others reported in LAWS(ALL)-2025-4-9, Ashish Kakkar vs. Union of Territory of Chandigarh passed in Criminal Appeal No.1518 of 2025, Signature Not Verified Signed by: DHEERAJ PRATAP SINGH Signing time: 12-09-2025 18:19:31 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:44210 4 MCRC-35872-2025 Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Rajnikant Ojha passed in CRM (M) 1 of 2025 and Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Pankaj Bansal vs. Union of India and Others reported in (2024) 7 SCC 516 have held that non compliance of directions vitiate the whole proceedings and the petitioners are entitled for immediate release.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Vivek Garg (Corpus) vs Union Of India And 4 Others on 6 April, 2026

7.In view of the above consideration, we have no option but to quash the remand order dated 19.12.2025 passed by the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate , Meerut impugned in this petition.We further warn the respondent nos. 2 and 4 and the Remand Magistrate not to exercise their power in violation of law laid-down by the Apex Court and this court in the case of Prabir Purkayastha ersus State (Nct Of Delhi) LAWS(SC)-2024-5-46, Pankaj Bansal . Union of India LAWS(SC)-2023-10-3, Vihaan Kumar State of Haryana LAWS(SC)-2025-2-20 & Ashish Kakkar v U.T Chandigarh; Criminal Appeal No.1518 of 2025@ SLP [Cr] No.1662 of 2025 & Kasireddy Upender Reddy v State of Andhra Pradesh LAWS(SC)-2025-5-148 and as well as order passed by this Hon'ble Court in the case of Manjeet Singh @ Manjeet Singh Chana v State of Uttar Pradesh & Others LAWS(ALL)-2025-4-9, Anwar Dhebar v State of U.P & 2 Ors CRLP No. 12507 of 2024 and Umang Rastogi and Another State of Up and 3 Others
Allahabad High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Siddharth - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next