Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 282 (1.75 seconds)
Documents citing Harjit Singh And Ors. vs State Of Punjab on 16 August, 2002

Kashmir Kaur & Anr vs State Of Punjab on 12 December, 2012

(1) that the death of the woman was caused by any burns or bodily injury or in some circumstances which were not normal; (2) such death occurs within 7 years from the date of her marriage; (3) that the victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband; (4) such cruelty or harassment should be for or in connection with the demand of dowry; and (5) it is established that such cruelty and harassment was made soon before her death. (See Harjit Singh v. State of Punjab and Ram Badan Sharma v. State of Bihar).”
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 56 - Full Document

State vs . (1) Rakesh Sharma on 14 January, 2011

; Rajkumar and another Vs. State of Karnataka, 2006 (3) Crimes 662 ; Devassia Vs. State of Kerela, 2006 (3) Crimes 664 ; Jugam @ Jugal Ram and Ors. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh , 2006 (2) Crimes 654 ; Rikhee Ram mahilang Vs. State of Chhatisgarh, 2006 (2) Crimes 658 ; Khyaliram and others Vs. State of M.P, 2008 (1) Crimes 283 (M.P) ; Kartar Singh & Ors Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2006 (4) Crimes 498 ; Neeraj Gupta Vs. State, 2006 (4) Crimes 494 ; Chanchal Kumari and others Vs. Union Territory, AIR 1986 Supreme Court 752 ; Devender Singh Vs. State of Haryana, 2007 (1) Crimes 228 (SC); Narender Kumar & Anr Vs. State , Vijay Kumar & Anr, Vs. State , Gyan Prakash Vs. State, Jeevani Devi @ Jamuna Devi Vs. State 2008 (1) JCC 1 ; Ms. Anu Gill Vs. State & Anr. 2002 (1) C.C. Cases (H.C) 150 ; Arvind SC No. 65/2008 Page 10/25 -:11:- Singh Vs. State of Bihar, 2001 (3) C.C Cases SC 12 ; Mrs. Kiran Chipra Vs. The State of union Territory of Chandigarh 2000 (1) C.C.C Cases HC 122 ; Maninder Singh Vs. State of U.T Chandigarh, 200 (1) C.C.Cases HC 332 ; Nanak Chand & Ors Vs. State of Haryana & Anr. 1992 (2) C.C Cases 38 (H.C) ; Harjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab 2006 CRI.L.J 554.
Delhi District Court Cites 63 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S Bhalla Ball Bearing Industries And ... vs State Of Punjab And Others on 13 August, 2010

The petitioners have invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing respondent No.2 i.e. the Secretary, Department of Industries, Punjab to develop 6.5 acres of land as industrial estate falling in village "Phagwara Shirkey" under the supervision of respondent No.4 i.e. Punjab State Industries and Export Corporation, Chandigarh, to implement the decision Annexure P-6 taken in pursuance to the directions issued by this Court in civil revision No.1692 of 2002, and the order passed in civil writ petition No.12041 of 2003, to enable the industries to shift out of the residential area under the Town Planning Scheme No.5 Part II, Phagwara. Writ in the nature of prohibition was also sought, restraining respondents No.5 and 6 from implementing the decision dated 15.6.2004 (Annexure P-12) and orders dated 4.9.2006 (Annexures P-21 to P-21/C) passed by respondent No.6 in pursuance to the orders till new sites are allotted to respondent No.7 i.e. Co-operative Industrial Society Ltd. of Town Planning Scheme No.5 Part II, Phagwara, in view of the decision taken by respondent No.2 to revive the Town Planning Scheme No.5 Part II, Phagwara, vide Annexure P-20 In civil writ petition No.14592 of 2006 Harjit Singh and others CWP No.20792 of 2006 -3- Vs. State of Punjab and others, the petitioners have also challenged the decision dated 2.8.2006 of the State Government, recalling the previous order passed for dropping the Town Planning Scheme No.5.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Vinod Kumar Gupta vs State Of U.P. on 10 May, 2016

Now next question arises that as to how much sentence should be awarded to the appellant. Undisputedly at the time of incident, the Act 1985 was applicable and subsequent amendment has taken place in the year 2001. Under the old act, there was no discretion between the small quantity and the commercial quantity. I find substance in the submission of learned Additional Government Advocate that now the law as declared in E. Micheal Raj (supra) is no more applicable in view of the law laid down in Harjit Singh vs. State of Punjab (supra), therefore, whole of the quantity is to be taken into consideration.
Allahabad High Court Cites 47 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Case No. Sc/8919/16 Ncb vs . Monika @ Kajal & Anr. Dated: 16.03.2020 ... on 16 March, 2020

It is pertinent to note that in Harjit Singh's case, the seizure was made on 04.07.2003 i.e. prior to issuance of the notification dated 18.11.2009. It is also pertinent to notice that hon'ble Supreme court clearly held that for the cases registered after issuance of the notification, weight of the entire mixture is to be taken into consideration.
Delhi District Court Cites 40 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ishwar Dass Sharma vs State Of H.P. & Another on 16 October, 2020

24. The power of the Central Government to issue directions as contained in Section 111 of the 1963 Act cannot be stretched to amend the Regulations. Power must be exercised by the Central Government only in regard to the administration of the Trust. Such a power to issue direction must be construed strictly. (See Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India, Harjit Singh v. State of Punjab, Ashoka Smokeless Coal India (p) Ltd. V. Union of India and Poonam Verma v DDA)
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 3 - S Thakur - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next