Judgments - APPLICATION U/s 482
D.D.A. Vs. M/S.ANANT RAJ AGENCIES PVT.LTD.
KUSUM HARILAL SONI Vs. CHANDRIKA NANDLAL MEHTA & ANR.
SAU. JAYASHRI BHASKAR GOSAVI Vs. VISHWANATH KRISHNATH PANKE & ORS
KEDAR MISHRA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.
PAWAN KUMAR AGGARWAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS
STATE OF KERALA & ORS. Vs. M/S KERALA RARE EARTH & MINERALS LIMITED & ORS
MANISH KUMAR SUREKA Vs. WEST BENGAL FINANCIAL CORPORATION AND ORS.
NARAYAN Vs. BABASAHEB & ORS.
COMMISSIONER,DELHI VALUE ADDED TAX Vs. M/S ABB LTD.
LILAWATI AGARWAL (DEAD) BY LRS. & ORS. Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND
REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES &ANR Vs. T.K. KUNHIRAMAN & ORS.
LIC OF INDIA AND ORS Vs. KRISHNA MURARI LAL ASTHANA AND ANR ETC.
RAGHAVENDRA SWAMY MUTT Vs. UTTARADI MUTT
A plain reading of Section 100 CPC makes it explicit that the High Court can entertain a second appeal if it is satisfied that the appeal involves a substantial question of law. More than a decade and a half back, in Ishwar Dass Jain v. Sohan Lal[3] it has been ruled that after the 1976 Amendment, it is essential Full Judgment
COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, INDORE Vs. M/S. GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD.
PURPLE INDI HOLDINGS LTD. Vs. DRILLING &OFFSHORE PTE. LTD,
STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR. Vs. BRIJESHWAR SINGH CHAHAL & ANR.
The question precisely is whether appointment of law officers by the State Governments can be questioned or the process by which such appointments are made, can be assailed on the ground that the same are arbitrary, hence, violative of the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 38. To sum up, the following propositions are legally Full Judgment