Judgments
JAIKAM KHAN VERSUS THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
THE BORDEURI SAMAJ OF SRI SRI MAA KAMAKHYA v. RIJU PRASAD SARMA & ORS.
Gangashankar Dubey Versus Smt. Sindhu Bai and Others.
LOCHAN SHRIVAS VERSUS THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
M/s. Soorajmull Nagarmull Versus Sri Brijesh Mehrotra & Ors.
Mirza Iqbal @ Golu & Anr. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr
APMC Yashwanthapura through its Secretary vs. M/s. Selva Foods through its Managing Partner
Diamond Exports & Anr. Versus United India Insurance Company Limited & Ors.
E S Krishnamurthy & Ors. Versus M/s Bharath Hi Tech Builders Pvt. Ltd.
State of Haryana VERSUS M/s. Shiv Shankar Construction Co. & Anr.
Citizens for Green Doon & Ors. Versus Union of India & Ors.
THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, CIRCLE I (2), KUMBAKONAM & ANR. VERSUS V. MOHAN & ANR.
BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD. VERSUS SRI DEO KUMAR RAI @ DEO KUMAR RAY
Kamal Singh Rawat Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
HANIF UR RAHMAN Vs. The State of Bihar (through Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar)
Pratham National Security vs. Union of India & Others
Broad Son Commodities Private Limited, Vs. The State of Bihar through the Commissioner-Cum-Principal Secretary
Broad Son Commodities Private Limited, Vs. The State of Bihar - 14/12/2021
Gangaram Prajapati vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & others
Law laid down - 1. The order of preventive detention for its sustainability needs to satisfy compliance of the procedural mandate of Section 3(3) of Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 obliging the District Magistrate, who passes the order of preventive detention to forthwith report to the State Government. 2. The expression “forthwith” used in Section 3(3) of Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 means immediately without any unnecessary unexplained Full Judgment
Deenbandhu Saket Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and others.
Law laid down - The delinquent employee in a disciplinary proceeding has a statutory right under Rule 18(4) of M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966, to engage a Defence Assistant for which the Disciplinary Authority/Inquiry Officer ought to assist the delinquent employee so that the requirement of reasonable opportunity of being heard is satisfied. Full Judgment