Judgments
RAYMOND LTD. VERSUS PRET STUDY BY JANAK FASHIONS PRIVATE LIMITED
CYFUTURE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS FUTURETIMES TECHNOLOGY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED
PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-3 VERSUS SURESH KUMAR GUPTA
RIMT UNIVERSITY VERSUS UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE MINISTRY OF AYUSH & ANR
SARITA GUPTA & ORS VERSUS HARISH KUMAR PAHWA & ORS
M/S. SHANTI NATH ENTERPRISES VERSUS M/S. AA ENTERPRISES
HC/GD VIMLESH VEDWAL VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ANR
SACHIN KASHYAP & ORS. VERSUS SUSHIL CHANDRA SRIVASTAVA & ORS.
Siddhanath Mishra (Died)Through Lrs Versus State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors
FRANKLIN TEMPLETON TRUSTEE SERVICES PVT. LTD. VERSUS AMRUTA GARG AND OTHERS ETC.
Madras Bar Association Versus Union of India & Another
ANKIT TIWARI AND OTHERS vs. HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANOTHER
Law laid down - (i) Publication of key answers along with the result of the test is desirable in the interest of fairness and that correctness of key answers should be ascertained from the standard and prescribed text books and not merely on the basis of inferences. (ii) In a competitive examination candidates cannot be made to suffer on account of the errors committed by the examining body and to avoid any such gross injustice, re-evaluation can be directed. (iii) Such re-evaluation and Full Judgment
CENTRE FOR AVIATION POLICY, SAFETY AND RESEARCH CAPSR VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS
MR. NIRANJAN SWARUP GUPTA & ORS VERSUS BIMLA DEVI & ORS
UMED SINGH VERSUS STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR
Pramod Kumar Lihkhar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Law Laid Down - While framing a charge, the Court is expected to apply its mind to the entire record and documents placed therewith before the Court. No meticulous examination of evidence is needed for considering whether the case would end in conviction or not. However, the Court is required to consider and apply its judicial mind, whether the allegations taken as a whole will, prima facie constitute an offence and if so, whether continuation of proceedings is an abuse of Full Judgment
Smt. Prembai Versus State of Madhya Pradesh and others
Law laid down:- Medical Board opined that the victim has history of delayed milestone, poor understanding, poor self-care, inabilities to speak, drooling of saliva since childhood. The Medical Board further opined that on examination, it was found that patient is unable to take care of self, her hygiene is very poor and her intellectual abilities are poor. In view of these factors, patient was opined to suffer from SEVERE MENTAL RETARDATION WITH BEHAVIORAL PROBLEMS. The Medical Board was further of the Full Judgment