Judgments
GOVIND SWAROOP CHATURVEDI VERSUS STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS
M/S JYOTI SARUP MITTAL VERSUS THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER-XXIII, SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
Mamta Nair Versus State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Sanjay Jain Vs. The State of MP & Ors.
Law Point - Service Law-Clause 22 of the Contract - Deeming provision of termination on remaining absent for more than one month-The principles of natural justice must be read into the provision. The Clause-22 is interpreted by taking into account the similar provisions of standing orders etc. Fair Play and Reasonableness -The procedure adopted by employer must be just fair and reasonable. Moreso when its impact is on the right of livelihood of a person. Validity of order-Judicial Review -The validity of an order Full Judgment
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. VERSUS DR. MANOJ KUMAR SHARMA
PUNJAB STATE CO-OP MILK PROD.FED.LTD. VERSUS BALBIR KUMAR WALIA & ORS.
BAL BHARATI PUBLIC SCHOOL VERSUS NDMC AND ORS
FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA HANDLING WORKERS UNION VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS
Ram Ekbal Mahto Vs. The State of Bihar
Alok Ranjan Vs. The State of Bihar
Vedanta Ltd. (Formerly known as M/s Sesa Sterlite Ltd.) Versus The Goa Foundation & Ors.
AJIT MOHAN & ORS. VERSUS LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI & ORS.
DR. A. SURESH KUMAR & ORS. VERSUS AMIT AGARWAL
Arjun Kumar @ Prince Vs. The State Of Bihar
M/s Bihar Home Developers and Builders Vs. Shri Narendra Prasad Gupta
Sonu Bairwa Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.
Law Point - National Security Act, 1980 – Section 3(2) – It can be invoked in three contingencies and a citizen can be detained: i) for preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of State. ii) for preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. iii) for preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community. Interpretation of Statute – Use of “Explanation” – Explanation Full Judgment
Smt. Kantabai w/o Ashok Bhandari Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh
Law laid down - Section 82 (4) of Criminal Procedure Code for declaring an accused as a proclaimed offender is identical to Section 82 (1) of the Code. The only difference is the penal provisions for the same as provided under s.174A of IPC. The general principle that Lavesh v. State (NCT of Delhi) reported as (2012) 8 SCC 73 lays down is that for the purposes of an anticipatory bail, a proclaimed offender also includes an offender or a proclaimed Full Judgment
Nandkishore s/o Ganesh Ram Meghwal Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh
Law laid down - In case of issuance of summons/warrants against government employee/officer, the prosecution fails to procure their presence in Court, their salary/pension, as the case may be, can be withheld, if it is found that the government official is avoiding the summons/warrants. Full Judgment