The High Court of Punjab and Haryana, in CWP No. 44 of 1995, dismissed the writ petition. The bench observed that the issue was squarely covered by a prior Full Bench decision in Surjit Kumar Shama vs. State of Punjab (1992). Consequently, no separate reasoning was provided.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 44 of 1995 Date of decision: 22.04.2014
Nand Lal and others
...Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Haryana and others
...Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA
Present: Mr. Subhash Ahuja, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Mr. Kshitij Sharma, AAG, Haryana.
G.S.SANDHAWALIA, J. (Oral)
Counsel for the petitioners very fairly states that the issue is
squarely covered against him by the Full Bench decision of this Court in
Surjit Kumar Shama vs. State of Punjab, 1992 (2) PLR 428.
Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed in view of
the decision of the Full Bench in Surjit Kumar Shama's case (supra).
22.04.2014 (G.S. SANDHAWALIA) shivani JUDGE
Gupta Shivani 2014.04.23 14:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition should be allowed or dismissed in light of the Full Bench decision in Surjit Kumar Shama.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Surjit Kumar Shama vs. State of PunjabFollowed¶14
_Surjit Kumar Shama vs. State of Punjab, 1992 (2) PLR 428._
Nand Lal and others
State of Haryana and others
G.S. Sandhawalia
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
