Judgments - Supreme Court of India
HIRAL P. HARSORA AND ORS. Vs. KUSUM NAROTTAMDAS HARSORA AND ORS
GOV.BODY,L.P SHAHI COLLEGE, PATNA & ANR Vs. SEEMA MISHRA AND ORS
ANURAG KUMAR SINGH & ORS. Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ORS.
It is significant that the Rules refer to the recruitment year. It is a well-accepted principle of service law that only the number of vacancies that are advertised can be filled up. If the advertisement gives liberty to the Government to vary the number of posts, such power cannot be exercised for filling up future vacancies. If additional posts were created during the recruitment year i.e. Full Judgment
LALJIBHAI KADVABHAI SAVALIYA & ORS. Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS
BHAGWAN JAGANNATH MARKAD & ORS. Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
A. AYYASAMY Vs. A. PARAMASIVAM & ORS
RAJA & ORS. Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA
SYEDA RAHIMUNNISA Vs. MALAN BI (DEAD) BY LRS. & ANR.ETC.
JOSE @ PAPPACHAN Vs. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOYILANDY & ANR
In Dhan Raj @ Dhand vs. State of Haryana (2014) 6 SCC 745, one of us (Hon. Ghose,J.) while dwelling on the imperatives of circumstantial evidence ruled that the same has to be of highest order to satisfy the test of proof in a criminal prosecution. It was underlined that such circumstantial evidence should establish a complete unbroken Full Judgment
RAJENDRA KUMAR MESHRAM Vs. VANSHMANI PRASAD VERMA AND ANR
HUBLI-DHARWAD URBAN DEV. AUTHORITY Vs. SHEKHAR GOWDA CHENNABSANNAGOWDA P.(D ) LR. & ANR.
WORKMEN RASTRIYA COLLIERY MAZDOOR SANGH Vs. BHARAT COKING COAL LTD. & ANR.
RE - INHUMAN CONDITIONS IN 1382 PRISONS (II)
SADDIK @ LALO GULAM HUSSEIN SHAIKH & ORS Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT
VIKAS YADAV Vs. STATE OF U.P AND ORS. ETC. ETC
VILAS V. SANGHAI Vs. SUMERMAL MISHRIMAL BAFNA & ANR
14. In the instant case, the alleged criminal contempt was of a subordinate Court and therefore, the action could have been taken on a reference made to the High Court by the subordinate Court or on a Motion made by the Advocate General, but the proceedings had been initiated in pursuance of an application submitted by Full Judgment
STATE OF H.P & ORS Vs. RAJESH CHANDER SOOD ETC ETC
In our opinion, since the employees of Government companies are not Government servants, they have absolutely no legal right to claim that the Government should pay their salary or that the additional expenditure incurred on account of revision of their pay-scales should be met by the Government. Being employees of the companies, it is the responsibility of the companies to pay them salary and if the company is Full Judgment
NAGARPLAIKA THAKURDWARA Vs. KHALIL AHMED & ORS
So as to avail advantage of the provisions of Section 102 of the CPC, the subject matter of the original suit should be only recovery of money and that too, not exceeding Rs.25,000/-. If the subject matter of the suit is anything other than recovery of money or something more than recovery of money, provisions of Section 102 of the CPC cannot be invoked. 16. In the instant case, the original suit was not Full Judgment
NITU Vs. SHEELA RANI AND ORS
It is pertinent to note that in this case the pension is to be given under the provisions of the Scheme and therefore, only the person who is entitled to get the pension as per the Scheme would get it. family pension does not form part of the estate of the deceased and therefore, even an employee has no right to dispose of the same in his Will by giving a direction that Full Judgment