Judgments - AMALGAMATION ORDER
NANDKISHOR SAVALARAM MALU (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. Vs. HANUMANMAL G.BIYANI(D) BY LRS.& ORS.
ASHOK KUMAR & ORS Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ANR
STATE OF U.P. AND ORS Vs. SUBHASH CHANDRA JAISWAL AND ORS
R.M PALANIAPPAN & ORS Vs. INDIAN CULTURAL RESEARCH TRUST & ANR
DDA Vs. RAVI KUMAR GUPTA & ORS.
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. ISLAMUDDIN & ORS.
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. HARISH SAWHNEY AND ORS
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. Vs. KARTAR SINGH & ORS.
MOHD HASHIM Vs. STATE OF UP AND OTHERS
RAVINDRA AND ANR. Vs. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, UKP, BAGALKOT
ASUTOSH MOHANTY Vs. APARAJITA MOHANTY
MANBHAR DEVI AGARWAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.
COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT JAN SEWA SHIKSHA PRASAR SAMITI AND ORS. Vs. STATE OF U.P AND ORS.
RAMESH VERMA(D) TR.LRS. Vs. LAJESH SAXENA (D) BY LRS & ANR.
MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LTD. Vs. M/S. APPLIED ELECTRONICS LTD.
AMARSANG NATHAJI AS HIMSELF AND AS KARTA AND MANAGER Vs. HARDIK HARSHADBHAI PATEL AND ORS
The mere fact that a person has made a contradictory statement in a judicial proceeding is not by itself always sufficient to justify a prosecution under Sections 199 and 200 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) (hereinafter referred to as “the IPC”); but it must be shown that the defendant has intentionally given a false statement Full Judgment
GOLLA RAJANNA ETC. ETC. Vs. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER AND ANR ETC ETC.
The Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner, having regard to the evidence, had returned a finding on the nature of injury and the percentage of disability. It is purely a question of fact. There is no case for the insurance company that the finding is based on no evidence at all or that it is perverse. Under Section 4(1)(c)(ii) of the Act, Full Judgment