Judgments
Suresh Kumar Kurve Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and others
Law laid down - 1. Non-grant of increment during period of suspension does not amount to penalty as increments are paid for period spent on duty in a time-scale. During suspension delinquent employee is not on duty, therefore, non-grant of increment during suspension will not amount to penalty. 2. Obiter is not binding but ratio decidendi have binding precedent. Full Judgment
Basant Shravanekar and others Vs. The State of M.P. and others.
Law laid down - 1. Section 47 of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961 - The personal presence of councilors who have submitted the proposal/resolution before the Collector is not necessary. The Collector is best suited to decide the mode of verification but personal presence of councilors is not a statutory requirement. 2. Section 47(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961- 3/4 number of councilors moved a proposal for recalling the President. They attended the hearing before the Collector on two Full Judgment
GAGAN KUMAR VERSUS STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
SHALINI VERSUS STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
MS KAMLA BHEL CO PVT LTD VERSUS SMT SUNITA MEHTA & ORS
POOJA SINGLA BUILDERS AND ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE & ORS
SHIV AND SONS & ANR VERSUS INDIAN RAILWAY CATERING AND TOURISM CORPORATION LTD (IRCTC)
SONU VERSUS THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT), DELHI
KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION VERSUS K.N. RADHAMANI & ORS. ETC.
State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr Versus Akhilesh Jha & Anr
Rukmini Devi Vs. M/s Aryan Flavors (Registered Partnership Firm)
Kumari Manju Lata, Vs. The State of Bihar
Nirbhay Prashant, Advocate Vs. The State of Bihar
GUMANSINH @ LALO @ RAJU BHIKHABHAI CHAUHAN & ANR. VERSUS THE STATE OF GUJARAT
SOMESH THAPLIYAL & ANR. ETC. VERSUS VICE CHANCELLOR, H.N.B. GARHWAL UNIVERSITY & ANR.
The State of Kerala & Ors. Versus M/s Joseph & Company
M.P. Road Development Corporation Vs. The Ministry of Road, Transport and Highways (MORT & H) and another
Law laid down:- The M.P. Road Development Corporation challenged the order passed by the Arbitral Tribunal on a dispute arising out of a concession agreement executed between the Corporation and the respondent-Department, whereby the application filed by the petitioner-MPRDC under Section 16 of the Arbitration and conciliation Act, 1996 contending that the dispute falls within the definition of ‘works contract’ over which the Arbitral Tribunal constituted under the Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 would have exclusive jurisdiction and therefore, the Full Judgment