Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.46 seconds)
Documents citing S. Kuldip Singh And Anr. vs The Supdt. Of Police And Anr. on 13 February, 1963

M/S Urc Construction Private vs M/S Beml Limited on 9 June, 2021

With this background he would argue by referring to the decision in the 32 Com.A.S.175/2016 case of Kuldip Singh Vs. Commissioner of Police and others reported in (1999) 2 SCC 10, which speaks about that when the authorities fail to consider the evidence and both the oral and documentary evidence, according to him, when authority is expected to act prudently and failed perform, then the plaintiff cannot be blamed for that. I do not know how the above decision is helpful to the plaintiff and nothing is canvassed about this decision.
Bangalore District Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Roc vs M/S Dash Films Pvt. Ltd. on 7 May, 2014

12.In an earlier judgment, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the following case has held that the offences u/s 159, 162, 220 is continuing offence. The relevant para of the judgment is reproduced below:­ 74 (1998) DLT 537 titled as Anita Chadha vs ROC Para 6 "In so far as the first question is concerned, this Court in Kuldip Singh and Another v. State and Another, 34 (1988) DLT 11 held that considering the objects of the provisions of Sections 159 and 220 read with section 162 of the Act and the language used therein, the offences of which the accused were charged, namely non­filing of annual return, balance sheet and profit & loss account, within the period prescribed, were continuing offences and therefore, the period of limitation provided by section 468 of the Code did not haver any application. It was further held that the said offences will be governed by Section 472 of the Code, according to which a fresh period of limitation shall began to run at very moment of time during which the offences continue. This Court considered the following three decisions of the Supreme Court, which dealt with the question as to whether a particular offence was a continuing offence or not:
Delhi District Court Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Roc vs M/S Amulya General Trading And Agencies ... on 25 March, 2014

15.In the earlier judgment, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the following case has held that the offences u/s 159, 162, 220 is continuing offence. The relevant para of the judgment is reproduced below:­ 74 (1998) DLT 537 titled as Anita Chadha vs ROC Para 6 "In so far as the first question is concerned, this Court in Kuldip Singh and Another v. State and Another, 34 (1988) DLT 11 held that considering the objects of the provisions of Sections 159 and 220 read with section 162 of the Act and the language used therein, the offences of which the accused were charged, namely non­filing of annual return, balance sheet and profit & loss account, within the period prescribed, were continuing offences and therefore, the period of limitation provided by section 468 of the Code did not haver any application. It was further held that the said offences will be governed by Section 472 of the Code, according to which a fresh period of limitation shall began to run at very moment of time during which the offences continue. This Court considered the following three decisions of the Supreme Court, which dealt with the question as to whether a particular offence was a continuing offence or not:
Delhi District Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Roc vs M/S Amulya General Trading And Agencies ... on 25 March, 2014

15.In the earlier judgment, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the following case has held that the offences u/s 159, 162, 220 is continuing offence. The relevant para of the judgment is reproduced below:­ 74 (1998) DLT 537 titled as Anita Chadha vs ROC Para 6 "In so far as the first question is concerned, this Court in Kuldip Singh and Another v. State and Another, 34 (1988) DLT 11 held that considering the objects of the provisions of Sections 159 and 220 read with section 162 of the Act and the language used therein, the offences of which the accused were charged, namely non­filing of annual return, balance sheet and profit & loss account, within the period prescribed, were continuing offences and therefore, the period of limitation provided by section 468 of the Code did not haver any application. It was further held that the said offences will be governed by Section 472 of the Code, ROC vs M/s Amulya General Trading & Agencies Ltd. CC No.1439-47/3 10 of 10 according to which a fresh period of limitation shall began to run at very moment of time during which the offences continue. This Court considered the following three decisions of the Supreme Court, which dealt with the question as to whether a particular offence was a continuing offence or not:
Delhi District Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Roc vs J.K. Singh Etc. on 6 June, 2014

The relevant para of the judgment is reproduced below:­ 74 (1998) DLT 537 titled as Anita Chadha vs ROC Para 6 "In so far as the first question is concerned, this Court in Kuldip Singh and Another v. State and Another, 34 (1988) DLT 11 held that considering the objects of the provisions of Sections 159 and 220 read with section 162 of the Act and the language used therein, the offences of which the accused were charged, namely non­filing of annual return, balance sheet and profit & loss account, within the period prescribed, were continuing offences and therefore, the period of limitation provided by section 468 of the Code did not have any application. It was further held that the said offences will be governed by Section 472 of the Code, according to which a fresh period of limitation shall began to run at very moment of time during which the offences continue. This Court considered the following three decisions of the Supreme Court, which dealt with the question as to whether a particular offence was a continuing offence or not:
Delhi District Court Cites 39 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sagar Sengupta vs State Of West Bengal &Ors on 20 May, 2025

In this regard, useful reference may be made to the decision in Kuldip Singh vs. Commissioner of Police & Ors., reported in (1999) 2 SCC 10, wherein the 13 Hon‟ble Supreme Court emphasized the necessity of including all relevant material in the charge sheet. It was also held therein that any document not referred to in the charge sheet cannot be used against the delinquent employee.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

B B Modi vs D/O Post on 14 May, 2019

He also cited the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kuldip Singh vs. Commissioner of Police & ors reported in AIR 1999 SC 677 in which it was held that suspicion or presumption cannot take the place of proof even in the domestic inquiry. The written note stressed on the point that the applicant denied the charges and without ascertaining the facts, the respondents have proceeded on presumption.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Cuttack Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Subhendu Sengupta vs Central Bank Of India And Ors. on 24 November, 2005

on which very heavy reliance was placed was not confirmed as it is by the Division Bench. Instead the Division Bench directed a fresh enquiry by some other officer. Secondly it is seen by the learned Judge that the question of bias was raised during the enquiry by Shri Nripendra Nath Sarkar. But that was not headed to. The interference was made by Justice Banerjea on the further ground that an important witness was not allowed to be cross-examined, his name being Ram Kebal Kahar and that the petitioner in that case had made number of complaints during the enquiry that his requests were not being entertained or appreciated because of bias. We do not see as to how the enquiry in the case of Nripendra Nath Sarkar would be in any manner relevant to the present enquiry because the present appellant had not raised even a murmur against the enquiry officer nor had he complained in any manner against the way the enquiry was going on. There is nothing on record as a matter of fact to suggest that the petitioner had in any manner shown his decence with the manner in which the enquiry is going on. We, therefore, do not accept the contention raised by Mr. Mukherjee that since the enquiry in the case of Nripendra Nath Sarkar was quashed, the same results should have followed in this enquiry also.
Calcutta High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - V S Sirpurkar - Full Document

Bhaba Kalita vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 17 July, 2003

4. The arguments advanced on behalf of the writ petitioner would go to show that the primary thrust of the challenge made is to the effect that the report of enquiry, which has been accepted and which has formed the basis for the impugned action, is perverse, being opposed to the weight of materials on record and no punishment ought to have been imposed on the writ petitioner on the basis of the findings recorded in course of the enquiry. Specifically, the learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that P.W.-10 examined in support of the charges, in his deposition before the enquiry officer, has testified that the writ petitioner delinquent was engaged in a fight with one of the persons injured, which would go to show that there was mutual assault between the writ petitioner and the persons, who allegedly suffered injuries. The findings of the enquiry officer that the petitioner was in an intoxicated condition, it is argued, is not borne out by the materials on record. That apart, it has been contended by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner that the evidence of the defence witnesses, who were examined in the case and who supported the writ petitioner, have been ignored by the enquiry officer while coming to his impugned findings. The learned counsel for the petitioner by relying on a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Kuldip Singh v. Commissioner of Police and Ors., reported in (1999) 2 SCC 10 has contended that as no cogent ground has been assigned for ignoring the evidence of the defence witnesses, the enquiry report as a whole stands vitiated, the automatic consequence of which would be to render the punishment null and void. Alternatively, it has been argued by the Mr. Chauhdhury that even if this Court is inclined to hold that the report of the enquiry officer is valid, the materials disclosed by the said report would go to show that there was a mutual exchange/fight between the writ petitioner and the persons who allegedly suffered injury and the writ petitioner himself was hospitalised on account of the injuries suffered by him in the course of such fight. If the writ petitioner is to be blamed, the persons, who allegedly suffered injuries are to be euqally blamed and in that view of the matter, the punishment of removal from service is disproportionate warranting interference of this Court.
Gauhati High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - R Gogoi - Full Document
1   2 Next