Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 334 (0.65 seconds)
Documents citing Satbir Singh vs The State Of Haryana on 28 May, 2021

Lakshman Prasad vs The State Of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) on 6 January, 2026

"17.In the above context, we may usefully refer to a recent decision of a three-Judge Bench of this Court in Gurmeet Singh v. State of Punjab [Gurmeet Singh v. State of Punjab, (2021) 6 SCC 108 : (2021) 2 SCC (Cri) 771] that has restated (at SCC pp. 111-12, para 9) the detailed guidelines that have been laid down in Satbir Singh v. State of Haryana [Satbir Singh v. State of Haryana, (2021) 6 SCC 1 : (2021) 2 SCC (Cri) 745] , both authored by N.V. Ramana, C.J. relating to trial 20 2026:JHHC:210-DB under Section 304-BIPC where the law on Section 304-BIPC and Section 113-B of the Evidence Act has been pithily summarised in the following words : (Satbir Singh case [Satbir Singh v. State of Haryana, (2021) 6 SCC 1 : (2021) 2 SCC (Cri) 745] , SCC p. 13, para
Jharkhand High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - S N Prasad - Full Document

Lakshman Prasad vs The State Of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) on 6 January, 2026

"17.In the above context, we may usefully refer to a recent decision of a three-Judge Bench of this Court in Gurmeet Singh v. State of Punjab [Gurmeet Singh v. State of Punjab, (2021) 6 SCC 108 : (2021) 2 SCC (Cri) 771] that has restated (at SCC pp. 111-12, para 9) the detailed guidelines that have been laid down in Satbir Singh v. State of Haryana [Satbir Singh v. State of Haryana, (2021) 6 SCC 1 : (2021) 2 SCC (Cri) 745] , both authored by N.V. Ramana, C.J. relating to trial 20 2026:JHHC:210-DB under Section 304-BIPC where the law on Section 304-BIPC and Section 113-B of the Evidence Act has been pithily summarised in the following words : (Satbir Singh case [Satbir Singh v. State of Haryana, (2021) 6 SCC 1 : (2021) 2 SCC (Cri) 745] , SCC p. 13, para
Jharkhand High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - S N Prasad - Full Document

Krishna Chandra Mahto @ Krishna Mahto vs The State Of Jharkhand on 23 April, 2025

In the above context, we may usefully refer to a recent decision of a three-Judge Bench of this Court in Gurmeet Singh v. State of Punjab [Gurmeet Singh v. State of Punjab, 21 2025:JHHC:12183-DB (2021) 6 SCC 108 : (2021) 2 SCC (Cri) 771] that has restated (at SCC pp. 111-12, para 9) the detailed guidelines that have been laid down in Satbir Singh v. State of Haryana [Satbir Singh v. State of Haryana, (2021) 6 SCC 1 : (2021) 2 SCC (Cri) 745] , both authored by N.V. Ramana, C.J. relating to trial under Section 304-BIPC where the law on Section 304-BIPC and Section 113-B of the Evidence Act has been pithily summarised in the following words : (Satbir Singh case [Satbir Singh v. State of Haryana, (2021) 6 SCC 1 : (2021) 2 SCC (Cri) 745] , SCC p. 13, para 38) "38.1. Section 304-B IPC must be interpreted keeping in mind the legislative intent to curb the social evil of bride burning and dowry demand.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - S N Prasad - Full Document

Raja Ram Mandal vs The State Of Jharkhand on 6 May, 2024

- 18 - Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 886 of 2018 with Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 365 of 2018 considered under the specific circumstances of each case and no straight jacket formula can be laid down by fixing any time limit. In relation to dowry death circumstances showing that the existence of cruelty or harassment to the deceased are not restricted to the particular instance but normally referred to course of conduct. Such conduct may be spread over a a period of time. Thus, a proximate and live link between the fact of cruelty based on dowry demand and consequential death is required to be proved by the prosecution. The demand of dowry, cruelty or harassment based upon such demand and date of death should not be two remote in time which under the circumstances be treated as having become stale enough. Paragraph Nos.16 and 38.3 read as under:
Jharkhand High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - S Chand - Full Document

Pardeep Kumar Aggarwal vs Department Of Posts on 20 August, 2024

7. The contention of respondent in respect of claim of notional increment to the applicants is rejected in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court in the case of Satbir Singh vs. State of Haryana, 2002 (2) SCT page 354, wherein the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High 7 Court has held that when a judgment attains finality, the State is bound to grant relief to its employees, who are similarly situated even though they are not party to the litigation. A final decision of the Court must not only be respected but should also be enforced and implemented evenly and without discrimination in respect of all the employees, who are entitled to the benefit, which has been allowed to the employees, who have obtained orders from the Court. The matter is one of principle and should not depend upon who comes to the court and who does not. I am of the considered view that after the final adjudication of issue by the Hon'ble Apex Court, any compulsion to the similarly situated persons being senior citizens/retired employees to contest litigation, for the same issue is unwarranted and harassment.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next