Judgments
Mahendra S/o Ramkishan Prajapat Vs State of Madhya Pradesh and another
REENA SURESH ALHAT Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR.
Rambagas Nai (dead) & Otrh. Versus State Of Chhattisgarh
EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ARULMIGU CHOKKANATHASWAMY KOIL TRUST VIRUDHUNAGAR Vs. CHANDRAN & ORS
ASSOCIATION OF VICTIMS OF UPHAAR TRAGEDY Vs. SUSHIL ANSAL AND ANR.
B.K.PAVITRA & ORS. Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
It is clear from the above discussion that exercise for determining ‘inadequacy of representation’, ‘backwardness’ and ‘overall efficiency’, is a must for exercise of power under Article 16(4A). Mere fact that there is no proportionate representation in promotional posts for the population of SCs and STs is not by itself enough to grant consequential seniority to promotees who are otherwise junior and thereby denying seniority to those who are given Full Judgment
Baijnath Patel Versus Collector, Mahasamund District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh & Oth.
NARMADA BACHAO ANDOLAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
VIJAY KUMAR AHLUWALIA AND ORS Vs. BISHAN CHAND MAHESHWARI AND ANR
It is a settled principle of law that while considering the grant of leave to contest the eviction proceedings under the Rent Laws, the Authority/Court is not expected to examine the merits and demerits of the grounds raised in the application for grant of leave to contest and if the Authority/Court finds that the grounds raised prima facie disclose Full Judgment
NIDHI Vs. RAM KRIPAL SHARMA (D) THR. LRS.
The point falling for consideration is whether the marriage of the appellant/landlady as subsequent event can extinguish the bona fide requirement of a landlady and disentitle her for the relief sought in the release application filed prior to her marriage. In the facts of present case, the change in subsequent events is not such that would deprive the appellant of her Full Judgment