Curr共享单车 not a separate order; decree as per concurrent order in CWP No.1343 of 2011 (Ramesh Kumar case) without recording fresh reasons. No substantive legal proposition.
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. 1403 of 2011 (O&M)
Date of decision : 9.3.2017
Ranbir Singh and others
.. Petitioners
versus
State of Haryana and others
.. Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Hon'ble Mr. Justice Harinder Singh Sidhu
Present: Mr. Mahavir Sandhu, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Mr. Ankur Mittal, Additional Advocate General, Haryana.
Rajesh Bindal, J.
For order see, detailed reasons recorded in a separate order of even date passed in CWP No.1343 of 2011 titled as Ramesh Kumar and others vs. State of Haryana and others.
(Rajesh Bindal) Judge
(Harinder Singh Sidhu) Judge
9.3.2017 sharmila
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No
Sharmila Devi 2017.03.17 15:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ramesh Kumar and others vs. State of Haryana and othersReferred¶13
Ramesh Kumar and others vs. State of Haryana and others
Ranbir Singh and others
State of Haryana and others
Rajesh Bindal
Harinder Singh Sidhu
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
