Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.38 seconds)
Documents citing Gurmeet Singh vs Union Of India And Others on 7 August, 1990

Sarita Kumari And Ors. vs The Punjab State Electricity Board And ... on 15 December, 1994

In a very recent judgment pronounced by another Division Bench of this Court in Gurmeet Singh v. The State of Punjab and others, 4 Civil Writ Petition No. 15893 of 1993, the Court, after considering the judgment of the Supreme Court in PJ. Sunderrajan and Anr. v. Unit Trust of India and Ors., 1993 (3) S.L.R. 21 (S.C.), which is the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the present case as well, held :-
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 4 - S Kumar - Full Document

Mr. Jitendra Kumar vs Chief Of Army Staff And Ors. on 19 October, 2006

In addition to the above judgments reference can also be made to a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of G.D. Eshwar Chand v. Union of India and Ors. 2004 (3) SLR 439, judgments of Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Gurmeet Singh v. Union of India 2000 (5) SLR 596 and in the case of Ex. Naik Manjit Singh v. Government of India 2000 (1) SLR 100. The provisions of the Army Act and the Rules framed there under do not define the word "duty". This expression finds mention in Appendix II attached to Regulations 48, 173 and 185 of the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961. In Clause 12 of the said appendix, this expression has been descriptively. It illustrates what could be a 'duty' for the purposes of determining attributability to military service or its aggravation. Such a clause which restrictively defines an expression would be incapable of being given a restricted meaning. Clause 'f' of Rule 12 even includes accidents which occurs when a man is not strictly 'on duty'. There are certainly acts and deeds which a member of the Force would be expected to perform while on actual duty in the Unit or while on leave. For example, going to the market to purchase his households, to go to drop his ward to school or going to some public office or booking office for booking a ticket or other such requirements. These are some of the acts, attributability to service whereof will not change by virtue of location or posting of the person subject to the Army Act.
Delhi High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 6 - S Kumar - Full Document

Ex. Sepoy Hayat Mohammed vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 11 January, 2007

In addition to the above judgments reference can also be made to a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of G.D. Eshwar Chand v. Union of India and Ors. 2004 (3) SLR 439, judgments of Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Gurmeet Singh v. Union of India 2000 (5) SLR 596 and in the case of Ex. Naik Manjit Singh v. Government of India 2000 (1) SLR 100. The provisions of the Army Act and the Rules framed there under do not define the word "duty". This expression finds mention in Appendix II attached to Regulations 48, 173 and 185 of the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961. In Clause 12 of the said appendix, this expression has been descriptively. It illustrates what could be a 'duty' for the purposes of determining attributability to military service or its aggravation. Such a clause which restrictively defines an expression would be incapable of being given a restricted meaning. Clause 'f' of Rule 12 even includes accidents which occurs when a man is not strictly 'on duty'. There are certainly acts and deeds which a member of the Force would be expected to perform while on actual duty in the Unit or while on leave. For example, going to the market to purchase his households, to go to drop his ward to school or going to some public office or booking office for booking a ticket or other such requirements. These are some of the acts, attributability to service whereof will not change by virtue of location or posting of the person subject to the Army Act.
Delhi High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 10 - S Kumar - Full Document

Cypriain Duruaku vs Union Of India And Ors. on 18 December, 1991

(9) The short question now for consideration is about the effect of the petitioner being not made aware of such a right. Case Shri Jagprit Singh. v.Union of India & Ors .JT 1990 (3) S.C. 293 is a judgment on all force in favor of the case of the petitioner. It has specifically been held by the Supreme Court that a detenu has a right of being informed that he can make are presentation against the declaration and if not made aware or if there is a delay in making him aware of such a right it would be inconsistent with the provisions of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India and, thus, the detention beyond the original period of one year would not be justified. This judgment has been followed by this Court in numerous cases including Gurmeet Singh v. Union of India & Others, 1990 (3) Delhi Lawyer 221; M.A. Pocket Haji v. Union of India & Ors., 1990 (3) Delhi Lawyer 170 and Mohan Lal v.UOI & Ors., Cr. W. No. 288 of 1990 decided on 4/02/1991.
Delhi High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1