Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 203 (1.60 seconds)
Documents citing The State Of Punjab & Ors vs Bakshish Singh on 8 September, 1998

Criminal Case/589/1999 on 4 April, 2015

10. PW-5 Ct. Satbir Singh deposed that on 23.06.1999 he had proceeded to the spot along with IO SI Surender Kumar Gulia on receiving DD NO. 27B where they found one tanker and motorcycle in accidental condition. The accused has already been apprehended by the public. PSI Kuldeep and Ct.Amrinder also reached at the spot. Injured had already been taken to the hospital. He deposed that he along with IO had gone to Agrasen hospital and collected the MLC of the injured persons. IO recorded the statement of injured Lekh Raj. He prepared the rukka and handed it over to the witnesses for registration of FIR. He went to the police station and returned back to the spot along with copy of FIR and rukka which he handed over to the IO. IO photographed the spot using a private camera. Tanker and the motorcycle were seized vide memo State v. Bakshish Singh U/s 279/337/304A IPC 5/13 FIR No. 588/99 PS Paschim Vihar Ex.PW5/A and Ex.PW5/B respectively. DL of the accused was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW5/C. The accused was arrested and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW5/D. During cross examination, witness stated that there were 20-30 public persons were present at the spot.
Delhi District Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Satendra Kumar vs Inspector General Of ... on 21 March, 2018

Insofar as the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that once the leave without pay was granted to the petitioner his absence stood authorized and his dismissal order is illegal in the light of Bakshish Singh (supra) is concerned, suffice to note that the aforesaid judgment was held to be not an authority for the proposition that order of termination of service is not sustainable in law in case the unauthorized absence is converted into leave without pay for the period of his absence or say, is regularized.
Allahabad High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - V K Birla - Full Document

Sanaullah Khan vs State Of U.P.Thorugh Secy. Home Deptt. ... on 13 April, 2017

4. Only argument advanced before this Court is that period of absence was regularized by Competent Authority after granting due leave, hence question of unauthorized absence does not arise since absence was regularized as leave without pay and it cannot be said that there was any unauthorized absence. Reliance is placed on Supreme Court's decision in State of Punjab and others Vs. Bakshish Singh, 1998(8) SCC 222. Therein two Judges Bench confirmed the judgment of Court below wherein a finding was recorded that unauthorized absence from duty having been regularized by treating period of absence as leave without pay, charge of misconduct does not survive. Aforesaid finding was confirmed by Apex Court by observing that period of unauthorized absence from duty was regularized, hence charge did not survive.
Allahabad High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Akshay Vinimay Llp vs Neeraj Bajoria And Others on 31 March, 2026

Despite 21 The Bengal Club Ltd. v. Susanta Kumar Chowdhary, reported at AIR 2003 Cal 96 43 2026:CHC-AS:515-DB relying on Bakshish Singh (supra)22, the learned Division Bench unfortunately failed to take into consideration the caution issued therein that the Appellate Court cannot, in the garb of exercise of Order XLI Rule 33, enlarge the scope of the appeal itself and did precisely so by taking into consideration additional materials placed by the appellant before it, which were not available to the Trial Court at the time of passing the order impugned in the appeal.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - S Bhattacharya - Full Document

Akshay Vinimay Llp vs Neeraj Bajoria And Others on 31 March, 2026

Despite 21 The Bengal Club Ltd. v. Susanta Kumar Chowdhary, reported at AIR 2003 Cal 96 43 2026:CHC-AS:515-DB relying on Bakshish Singh (supra)22, the learned Division Bench unfortunately failed to take into consideration the caution issued therein that the Appellate Court cannot, in the garb of exercise of Order XLI Rule 33, enlarge the scope of the appeal itself and did precisely so by taking into consideration additional materials placed by the appellant before it, which were not available to the Trial Court at the time of passing the order impugned in the appeal.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - S Bhattacharya - Full Document

Kuppan vs Managing Director on 16 November, 2016

As pointed out by the Apex Court in State of Punjab v. Bakshish Singh , 1998 (8) S.C.C. 222, the reading of the provision would make it clear that the Appellate Court has got wide power to do complete justice between the parties and which enables this Court to pass such decree or order as ought to have been passed or as the nature of the case may require notwithstanding that the party in whose favour the power is sought to be exercised has not filed any Appeal or cross-objection.
Madras High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - T Raja - Full Document

Akshay Vinimay Llp vs Neeraj Bajoria And Others on 31 March, 2026

Despite 21 The Bengal Club Ltd. v. Susanta Kumar Chowdhary, reported at AIR 2003 Cal 96 43 2026:CHC-AS:515-DB relying on Bakshish Singh (supra)22, the learned Division Bench unfortunately failed to take into consideration the caution issued therein that the Appellate Court cannot, in the garb of exercise of Order XLI Rule 33, enlarge the scope of the appeal itself and did precisely so by taking into consideration additional materials placed by the appellant before it, which were not available to the Trial Court at the time of passing the order impugned in the appeal.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - S Bhattacharya - Full Document

Akshay Vinimay Llp vs Neeraj Bajoria And Others on 31 March, 2026

Despite 21 The Bengal Club Ltd. v. Susanta Kumar Chowdhary, reported at AIR 2003 Cal 96 43 2026:CHC-AS:515-DB relying on Bakshish Singh (supra)22, the learned Division Bench unfortunately failed to take into consideration the caution issued therein that the Appellate Court cannot, in the garb of exercise of Order XLI Rule 33, enlarge the scope of the appeal itself and did precisely so by taking into consideration additional materials placed by the appellant before it, which were not available to the Trial Court at the time of passing the order impugned in the appeal.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - S Bhattacharya - Full Document

Kuppan vs Managing Director on 16 November, 2016

As pointed out by the Apex Court in State of Punjab v. Bakshish Singh , 1998 (8) S.C.C. 222, the reading of the provision would make it clear that the Appellate Court has got wide power to do complete justice between the parties and which enables this Court to pass such decree or order as ought to have been passed or as the nature of the case may require notwithstanding that the party in whose favour the power is sought to be exercised has not filed any Appeal or cross-objection.
Madras High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - T Raja - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next