Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.57 seconds)
Ehc Dhan Singh & Ors vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 20 September, 2018 cites

Union Of India vs Ram Kishan on 7 May, 1971

Learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to the decision given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. Ram Kishan, 1972 SLR 11 and this Court in State of Haryana Vs. Ex. HC Anant Ram, 2015 (4) SCT 575, to contend that before initiating a departmental enquiry, sanction of the Magistrate was mandatory under Rule 16.38 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (for short 'Rule 1934').
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 23 - S M Sikri - Full Document

Ishwar Singh vs State Of Haryana And Others on 10 July, 1995

The judgment in Pale Ram's case (supra) has also been followed by this Court in a case of Ishwar Singh vs. State of Haryana and others, passed in CWP No. 8085-2013, decided on 23.04.2014 The judgment cited by learned counsel for the petitioner mentioned above will not be applicable to the facts of the present case, as in those cases, F.I.R had not been registered and as per Rule 16.38, it is only at the stage of the complaint when the sanction of District Magistrate is required.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 196 - R P Sethi - Full Document

Constable Pale Ram vs State Of Haryana And Others on 14 December, 2012

The judgment in Pale Ram's case (supra) has also been followed by this Court in a case of Ishwar Singh vs. State of Haryana and others, passed in CWP No. 8085-2013, decided on 23.04.2014 The judgment cited by learned counsel for the petitioner mentioned above will not be applicable to the facts of the present case, as in those cases, F.I.R had not been registered and as per Rule 16.38, it is only at the stage of the complaint when the sanction of District Magistrate is required.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 6 - A G Masih - Full Document

State Of Haryana & Ors vs Hc Ram Rattan on 30 May, 2013

Learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to the decision given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. Ram Kishan, 1972 SLR 11 and this Court in State of Haryana Vs. Ex. HC Anant Ram, 2015 (4) SCT 575, to contend that before initiating a departmental enquiry, sanction of the Magistrate was mandatory under Rule 16.38 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (for short 'Rule 1934').
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 3 - S Kant - Full Document
1