THE PUNJAB STATE THROUGH ITS SECRETARY GOVT. PUNJAB DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION vs GURBAX SINGH (DEAD) THR. LRS. — C.A. No. 10187/2011
Case under Section IV. Status: Disposed.
CNR: SCIN010229812009
Filing Date
04-Aug-2009
Registration No
C.A. No. 10187/2011
Diary Number
22981/2009
Order Date
04-May-2022
Document Type
ROP - of Main Case
Disposal Type
Dismissed
Last updated 06-Jul-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.THE PUNJAB STATE THROUGH ITS SECRETARY GOVT. PUNJAB DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Adv. RANJEETA ROHATGI[P-1] RANJEETA ROHATGI[P-2] RANJEETA ROHATGI[P-3] RANJEETA ROHATGI[P-4] RANJEETA ROHATGI[P-5] RANJEETA ROHATGI
Respondent(s)
-
1.GURBAX SINGH (DEAD) THR. LRS.
Adv. P. N. PURI[R-1.1] P. N. PURI[R-1.2] P. N. PURI[R-1.3]
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
04-May-2022
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
04-May-2022
Fixed Date by Court
Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Abdul Nazeer and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vikram Nath
-
21-Apr-2022
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
21-Apr-2022
Ordinary
Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Abdul Nazeer and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vikram Nath
-
22-Jul-2021
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
22-Jul-2021
Next Week / Week Commencing / C.O.Week
Registrar (A-J)
-
25-Mar-2021
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
25-Mar-2021
Fixed Date by Court
Registrar (A-J)
-
17-Feb-2021
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
17-Feb-2021
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
11-Sep-2014
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
11-Sep-2014
Office Report - of Main CaseView PDF
-
11-Sep-2014
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
30-Apr-2014
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
20-Jan-2014
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
18-Nov-2011
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
16-Nov-2010
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
01-Oct-2010
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
29-Jul-2010
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
23-Nov-2009
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
07-Sep-2009
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
04-Aug-2009
Case filed
Registration No. C.A. No. 10187/2011
On 04-05-2022, the Supreme Court (Justices S. Abdul Nazeer and Vikram Nath) dismissed Punjab State's civil appeal against Gurbax Singh's legal representatives. The Court found no cogent reason to entertain the appeal and held that the impugned judgment did not warrant interference, though the question of law was left open. All pending applications were also disposed of. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts