Judgments - APPLICATION U/s 378 DEFECTIVE
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
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. MAHARAJ SINGH AND ORS.
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH SECREATARY LAND AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT Vs. VIKAS GUPTA AND ORS
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECREATARY LAND AND BUILDING DEPARTM Vs. RATHI STEELS LTD AND ORS
REENA KUMARI AND ORS. Vs. PRAVEEN KUMAR AND ORS.
LAND AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT THR SECRETARY, GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. Vs. M/S. GREEN FINANCE PVT. LTD. AND ORS.
LOK PRAHARI THR.ITS GNRL.SECY,S.N.SHUKLA Vs. STATE OF U.P.AND ORS.
STATE OF U.P. & ORS Vs. ALL U.P. CONSUMER PROTECTION BAR ASS.
RASHTRIYA COLLIERY MAZDOOR SANGH DHANBAD Vs. EMP. IN RELATION TO MANG. OF KEND.C.&ORS
PRESI. SECY, J.K.SYNTS.MAZ.UN.,KOTA&ANR Vs. ARFAT PETROCHEMICALS PVT.LTD & ORS.
H.P. STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD Vs. MAHESH DAHIYA
“Hence it has to be held that when the enquiry officer is not the disciplinary authority, the delinquent employee has a right to receive a copy of the enquiry officer’s report before the disciplinary authority arrives at its conclusions with regard to the guilt or innocence of the employee with regard to the charges levelled against him. That Full Judgment