Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SURENDER KUMAR versus MAHARSHI DAYANAND UNIVERSITY ROHTAK & AN

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Surender Kumar v. Maharshi Dayanand University Rohtak & An - CWP-16996-2003 [2006] RD-P&H 1670 (16 March 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Civil Writ Petition No.16996 of 2003

Date of decision: March 09, 2006.

Surender Kumar

...Petitioner

Through

Nemo

v.

Maharshi Dayanand University Rohtak & Anr.

...Respondents

Through

Mr. D.L. Gupta, Advocate for

respondent No.1.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.S. SARON

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?

2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ?

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest. S.S. Saron, J. (Oral)

Learned Counsel for respondent No.1 fairly states that the present case is covered against him by the decision of this Court in CWP No.11877 of 2000 (Meera Devi & Ors. v. Maharshi Dayanand University Rohtak and Ors.), decided on December 01, 2005.

Keeping in view the said decision, this writ petition is allowed in the same terms.

[ S.S. Saron ]

Judge

March 09, 2006. [ Surya Kant ]

kadyan Judge


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.