Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15034 (1.89 seconds)
Documents citing Kulwinder Pal Singh Etc vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 12 May, 2016

Rabindra Tiwary vs Lt. Governor, Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr. ... on 17 January, 2023

In the case of Kulwinder Pal Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Ors. (supra), the Supreme Court considered the provisions of Section 7 of the Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes (Reservation in Services) Act, 2006. Sub-section (1) of Section 7 of the said Act expressly provided that there would be no de-reservation of any reserved category by any appointing authority in any establishment. However, Sub-section (2) of Section 7 of the said Act enabled the appointing authority to refer the vacancies to the Department of Welfare of Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes for de-reservation, if the appointing authority deemed it necessary in public interest to fill up the said vacancies. In the aforesaid context, the Supreme Court had held as under:-
Delhi High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 1 - V Bakhru - Full Document

Nitin And Anr vs State Of Haryana And Others on 6 October, 2023

As per the Full Bench judgment of this Court in "Kulwinder Singh and others vs State of Punjab", 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, it is held that High Court has power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to allow the compounding of non-compoundable offence and quash the prosecution where the High Court feel that the same was required to prevent the abuse of the process of law or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. This power of quashing is not confined to matrimonial disputes alone.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - A S Sangwan - Full Document

Shankar vs State Of Haryana on 20 December, 2019

In Siya Ram Vs. State (U.T. Chandigarh) 2009 (1) RCR (criminal) 58; Sukhchain Singh Vs. State of Punjab CRM-M-15041- 2014 decided on 18.07.2014 2015(4) RCR (criminal) 518; Gurpal Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab CRR No. 791 of 2016 and Ravinder Vs. State of Haryana CRM-M-28367-2014 decided on 26.09.2014, Single Benches of this court took the view that report under section 173 (2) of the Cr.P.C. submitted without the chemical Examiner's report would be inconclusive and after the expiry of the statutory period the accused would be entitled to the benefit of bail under section 167 (2) of the Cr.P.C. However a contrary view was taken by Single Benches of this Court in Nirmal Singh alias Kala Vs. State of Punjab criminal miscellaneous No. 9411 of 2015 and Kulwinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab criminal miscellaneous No. 23782 of 2015.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 47 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Salam Samarjeet Singh vs The High Court Of Manipur At Imphal on 7 October, 2016

So far as the judgment in 6 (2002) 4 SCC 247 7 (1995) 3 SCC 486 11 W.P.(C)No.294/2015 the case of Kulwinder Pal Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab & Ors.8 is concerned, I am in respectful agreement with the same and with the view expressed by Banumathi, J. that only being in the selected panel does not give the petitioner or anybody else an indefeasible right to get an appointment. But the vacancies, as highlighted in paragraph 11, have to be filled up as per statutory rules and in conformity with the constitutional mandate. I do not see anything in that judgment against the consideration of petitioner’s case in accordance with law after declaring his results by ignoring the pass mark criteria for the viva voce examination introduced by the High Court and then proceed as per Rules by adding the marks of written examination with that of viva voce test. All actions of authorities must meet the test of reasonableness and in case petitioner is not offered appointment though being the only successful candidate, then the respondents may have to justify their action, if challenged, on the basis of case of Kulwinder Pal Singh and similar other judgments. As already indicated earlier, that stage is yet to arrive.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - S K Singh - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next