Judgments
MR. PEEYUSH TIWARI VERSUS FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA
PIXIE ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LIMITED & ORS
SMT. SARITA SINGH VERSUS SH. PRADEEP KUMAR & ORS
HARWANSH KAUR & ANR. VERSUS SPECIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (COUNTER MAGNET), GWALIOR & ORS.
KAVITHA LANKESH VERSUS STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.
Star Build Max Pvt. Limited, Vs. The State of Bihar
Vaibhavi Enterprise Versus Nobel Cera Coat & Ors.
Valsan P. Versus The State of Kerala and Ors.
PREM SHANKAR PRASAD VERSUS THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR.
VAISHNO DEVI CONSTRUCTION Rep. Thr. Sole Proprietor (D) Thr. LRs & Anr. Versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Arun Kumar Dey v/s The State of Madhya Pradesh through Special Police Establishment
Law laid down - 1. Section 311 of the Cr.P.C – The Section is in two parts. In the first part, the word “may” is employed whereas second part uses “shall”. Thus, first part gives pure discretion to the criminal court whereas second part makes it mandatory to summon the witness. Second part of Section 311 of the Cr.P.C - The litmus test to exercise power under the second part aforesaid is whether it is essential to the just decision of a Full Judgment
Tarun Kumar Mishra Versus State of M.P. & Ors.
Law laid down - As per the provisions of Rule 14 of MP Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1966, the disciplinary authority has to apply its mind separately at two different stages, (i) initiation of proceeding and (ii) approval of charge-sheet. It is not enough that if the disciplinary authority has formed an opinion to initiate the disciplinary proceeding and signed it, but for issuance of charge-sheet it would not be required to sign it by the disciplinary authority. Full Judgment