Judgments - SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE
COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE,TIRUCHIRAPALLI Vs. M/S. DALMIA CEMENT (BHARAT) LTD.
MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA Vs. AL MILLAT FOUNDATION TRUST AND ORS.
MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA Vs. AKASH EDUCATION & DEVELOPMENT TRUST AND ORS
TAPAS KUMAR MONDAL AND ORS. ETC. Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.
GURDAS SINGH & ORS. ETC. Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.
STANDARD CHARTERED BANK Vs. ANDHRA BANK FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD& ORS
STATE OF M.P. Vs. MOHAN LAL
Heard the learned counsel for the parties. In view of the Order dated 15.09.2014 passed by this Court in Civil Appeal No. 9675 of 2014 titled as “State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Vinod Kumar Tiwari”, in our considered opinion, it is a fit case where some compensation should be awarded to the respondent instead of directing the appellant to reinstate Full Judgment
M/S RAMCHANDRA REXINES (P) LTD AND ORS Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE BANGALORE-1
S.PANNEER SELVAM & ORS. Vs. GOVT.OF T.NADU & ORS.
The concept of ‘catch-up rule’ and ‘consequential seniority’ is judicially evolved concepts to control the extent of reservation. The question of reservation and the associated promotion and the consequential seniority have been the matter of discussion in various decisions of this Court. The matter regarding reservation in promotions was considered by a nine Judge Bench of this Court in Indra Sawhney And Ors. vs. Full Judgment
L.C. HANUMANTHAPPA (SINCE DEAD)REPRESENTED BY HIS LRS. Vs. H.B.SHIVAKUMAR
UOI & OTHERS Vs. NO. 3989606 P, EX-NK VIJAY KUMAR
SATYA PAL ANAND Vs. STATE OF M.P. AND ORS
C.C.E., CHENNAI Vs. HINDUSTAN LEVER LTD.
M/S. PUROLATOR INDIA LTD. Vs. COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI-III
STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. M/S. BANDEEP SINGH & ORS
VAISH AGGARWAL PANCHAYAT Vs. INDER KUMAR & ORS.
CENTRAL WAREHOUSING CORPOTRATION Vs. SARPANCH, GRAM PANCHAYAT AND ORS.
A. PRABHAKARA REDDY & CO. Vs. STATE OF M.P. & ORS.
We also find no merit in other submission advanced on behalf of the appellants that there is legal impediment in charging levy on the cost of construction incurred by the employer from a particular period on account of constitution of Board from a particular date or for any other reason. This argument is fallacious. Such beneficial measures for the welfare of workers are applicable even to Full Judgment