Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.26 seconds)Kunwar Pal Singh (Dead) By L.Rs vs State Of U. P. & Ors on 26 March, 2007
In this regard, he has placed
reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in case Uttar Pradesh Government
v. Sabir Hussain (1975) 4 Supreme Court Cases 703 and the judgments of this
Court in cases Dhian Singh (deceased) through his L.Rs v. State of Punjab and
others 2008 (1) I.L.R.(P&H) 1; Rattan Singh Sidhu v. Punjab & Sind Bank &
another 2007 (1) I.L.R. (P&H) 139; Sadhu Ram v. State of Punjab 2005 (2) SCT
295; State of Haryana v. Som Datt Ex-Constable 1981(1) S.L.R.647 and Harchand
Singh v. The State of Punjab 1980 (3) SLR 711.
Mangu Ram Alias Prem Kumar Son Of Sadhu ... vs State Of Punjab on 2 September, 2009
In this regard, he has placed
reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in case Uttar Pradesh Government
v. Sabir Hussain (1975) 4 Supreme Court Cases 703 and the judgments of this
Court in cases Dhian Singh (deceased) through his L.Rs v. State of Punjab and
others 2008 (1) I.L.R.(P&H) 1; Rattan Singh Sidhu v. Punjab & Sind Bank &
another 2007 (1) I.L.R. (P&H) 139; Sadhu Ram v. State of Punjab 2005 (2) SCT
295; State of Haryana v. Som Datt Ex-Constable 1981(1) S.L.R.647 and Harchand
Singh v. The State of Punjab 1980 (3) SLR 711.
Ram Sarup A.S.I. (Retd.), Harchand ... vs State Of Panjab on 1 February, 2001
In this regard, he has placed
reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in case Uttar Pradesh Government
v. Sabir Hussain (1975) 4 Supreme Court Cases 703 and the judgments of this
Court in cases Dhian Singh (deceased) through his L.Rs v. State of Punjab and
others 2008 (1) I.L.R.(P&H) 1; Rattan Singh Sidhu v. Punjab & Sind Bank &
another 2007 (1) I.L.R. (P&H) 139; Sadhu Ram v. State of Punjab 2005 (2) SCT
295; State of Haryana v. Som Datt Ex-Constable 1981(1) S.L.R.647 and Harchand
Singh v. The State of Punjab 1980 (3) SLR 711.
Debotosh Pal Choudhury vs Punjab National Bank & Ors on 17 September, 2002
In
support of his contention, he has placed reliance on the judgments of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in cases Debotosh Pal Choudhary v. Punjab National Bank 2002
(4) S.C.T. 451; State of U.P. v. Harendra Arora and another (2001) 6 Supreme
Court Cases 392; Managing Director, E.C.I.L., Hyderabad v. B.Karunakar (II)
1994 Supp (2) Supreme Court Cases 391 and the judgment of this Court in case
Regular Second Appeal No.3001 of 1986 5
Jaswant Singh v. Deputy General Manager Personnel, Punjab & Sind Bank and
another 2008 (2) S.C.T.134.
State Of U.P vs Harendra Arora & Anr on 2 May, 2001
In
support of his contention, he has placed reliance on the judgments of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in cases Debotosh Pal Choudhary v. Punjab National Bank 2002
(4) S.C.T. 451; State of U.P. v. Harendra Arora and another (2001) 6 Supreme
Court Cases 392; Managing Director, E.C.I.L., Hyderabad v. B.Karunakar (II)
1994 Supp (2) Supreme Court Cases 391 and the judgment of this Court in case
Regular Second Appeal No.3001 of 1986 5
Jaswant Singh v. Deputy General Manager Personnel, Punjab & Sind Bank and
another 2008 (2) S.C.T.134.
Managing Director Ecil Hyderabad Etc. ... vs B. Karunakar Etc. Etc on 1 October, 1993
In
support of his contention, he has placed reliance on the judgments of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in cases Debotosh Pal Choudhary v. Punjab National Bank 2002
(4) S.C.T. 451; State of U.P. v. Harendra Arora and another (2001) 6 Supreme
Court Cases 392; Managing Director, E.C.I.L., Hyderabad v. B.Karunakar (II)
1994 Supp (2) Supreme Court Cases 391 and the judgment of this Court in case
Regular Second Appeal No.3001 of 1986 5
Jaswant Singh v. Deputy General Manager Personnel, Punjab & Sind Bank and
another 2008 (2) S.C.T.134.
Chairman-Cum-M.D., T.N.C.S. Corpn. ... vs K. Meerabai on 23 January, 2006
19. An identical question arose before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
cases T.N.C.S.Corpn. Ltd. and others v. K.Meerabai (2006) 2 Supreme Court 255
and Commissioner of Police, New Delhi v. Narender Singh (2006) 4 Supreme
Court Cases 265. Having considered the matter deeply, it was ruled that "the
standards of proof require in a criminal proceeding are entirely different than that
of departmental disciplinary action and acquittal in criminal Court not by itself is a
ground not to initiate or drop departmental proceedings. The criminal as well as
departmental proceedings can go simultaneously."
Commissioner Of Police, New Delhi vs Narender Singh on 5 April, 2006
19. An identical question arose before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
cases T.N.C.S.Corpn. Ltd. and others v. K.Meerabai (2006) 2 Supreme Court 255
and Commissioner of Police, New Delhi v. Narender Singh (2006) 4 Supreme
Court Cases 265. Having considered the matter deeply, it was ruled that "the
standards of proof require in a criminal proceeding are entirely different than that
of departmental disciplinary action and acquittal in criminal Court not by itself is a
ground not to initiate or drop departmental proceedings. The criminal as well as
departmental proceedings can go simultaneously."
Union Of India And Others vs Naman Singh Sekhawat on 14 March, 2008
The same view was again
reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case Union of India and others v. Naman
Singh Shekhawat (2008) 4 Supreme Court Cases 1. These observations "mutatis
Regular Second Appeal No.3001 of 1986 9
mutandis" are applicable to the facts of the instant case and are the complete
answer to the problem in hand.