Baljit Singh vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 12 January, 2018
CWP No.12664 of
2017 titled Baljit Singh Vs. State of Punjab, has been taken as the lead
case and the facts are being extracted therefrom.
Facts
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 191 (3.12 seconds)Documents citing
Baljit Singh vs State Of Punjab And Others on 22 August, 2008
Sarwan Singh And Others vs Lakhwinder Singh And Others on 4 July, 2009
After hearing counsel for the parties and going through
FAO No.1544 of 2009 -6 -
the contents of this petition, we are of the opinion that in this
petition, the disputed questions of facts have been raised, which
cannot be gone into in the writ jurisdiction of this Court. This
Court in Baljit Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others (CWP
No.13643 of 2008, decided on August 22, 2008), has held that
in view of Clause (b) of Article 243-O of the Constitution of
India and Section 74 of the Punjab State Election Commission
Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), election of
Sarpanch is to be challenged by filing an election petition under
Section 76 on the grounds mentioned in Section 89 of the Act.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, no exceptional case
is made out to invoke the extra ordinary powers of this Court
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for setting aside
the election of Sarpanch. Thus, we do not find any ground to
entertain this petition.
Gurlal Singh vs Presiding Officer on 26 March, 2010
Learned counsel for the petitioner states that no proper notice
of the meeting held on 24.8.2008 was issued to the petitioner. However,
after arguing for sometime, learned counsel submitted that in view of the
disputed questions of facts raised in this writ petition and in view of
decision of this court in Baljit Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others
(CWP No.13643 of 2008, decided on August 22,2008), the petitioner may
be permitted to withdraw this petition with liberty to challenge the election
of respondent no.9 as Sarpanch in the meeting held on 24.8.2008 by filing
an election petition on the ground that for the said meeting no proper
notice was issued to the petitioner as well as other grounds.
Gurinder Singh vs The State Of Punjab on 29 August, 2011
6. Baljit Singh v. State of Punjab, 2002(4) R.C.R.
(Criminal) 664;
Vinod Kumar vs State Of Punjab on 1 June, 2012
Insofar as the judgments rendered in Leela Ram's case
(supra), Gurdarhan Pal's case (supra), Mohinder Singh's case
(supra) Baljit Singh's case (supra) and Mohmed Salim's case
(supra) are concerned, these decisions are not of any help to the
petitioners(s) as in none of these cases, the question involved here-
in-above has been answered.
Kulwant Singh vs State Of Punjab And Others on 3 October, 2008
In our opinion,
the petitioners can question the election of respondent-Ranjit Singh as
Sarpanch on the said ground by filing an election petition under Section 76
on the grounds mentioned in Section 89 of the Act, as has been held by
this Court in Baljit Singh v. State of Punjab and others (CWP No.13643
of 2008, decided on August 22, 2008).
Satpal vs The State Of Nct on 26 August, 2011
In support of
his contention, learned defence counsel has relied upon Baljit Singh V. State of
Punjab, 1995 CRI. L.J 3189, wherein benefit of probation Under Section 304A
IPC has been given.
Narender Kumar vs The State N.C. T. Of Delhi on 19 November, 2011
In support of his contention, learned counsel for appellant has
relied upon Baljit Singh V. State of Punjab, 1995 CRI. L.J 3189, wherein
benefit of probation Under Section 304A IPC has been given.
Bharat Singh vs State on 7 December, 2011
In this respect, I rely upon Baljit Singh V. State of Punjab, 1995
CRI. L.J 3189, wherein benefit of probation Under Section 304A IPC has
been given.
Jagjit Singh Chahal vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 7 October, 2015
(66) Respondent No.2 - Sikander Singh Malooka has filed
his affidavit dated 09.05.2014 refuting the petitioner's allegations.
It is averred that "the deponent has no connection or knowledge at
all with any kind of action taken against the petitioner nor the
deponent has interfered in the same". As regards the alleged
incident of use of red-light, it is explained that the Driver of the
deponent was challaned by one ASI Mukhtiar Singh for using red-
light but that allegation was totally false and the driver was
acquitted by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Phul.
(6) CRM-M-29757-2013
(Baljit Singh vs. State of Punjab)
(67) This petition u/s 482 CrPC also seeks entrustment of
the case FIR No.69 dated 16.04.2013 registered at Police Station
Fatehgarh Sahib u/s 21/61/85 of NDPS Act, 420/465/467/468/471
IPC to the Central Bureau of Investigation.