Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)
Appeal (Civil), 92=93
of 2017, Judgment Date: Jan 04, 2017
Full Judgment
Madhya Pradesh High Court (Single Judge)
MCRC, 3593
of 2016, Judgment Date: Jan 04, 2017
Full Judgment
Madhya Pradesh High Court (Single Judge)
MCRC, 11379
of 2015, Judgment Date: Jan 04, 2017
Full Judgment
Chhatisgarh High Court (Single Judge)
WP227->WRIT PETITION 227, 6406
of 2008, Judgment Date: Jan 04, 2017
Full Judgment
Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)
Appeal (Civil), 3842
of 2011, Judgment Date: Jan 03, 2017
In view of the above, it is well settled that the notice inviting
option need not to be personally served to the employees unless the
Regulation or any instruction so provides.
From the facts of the present case it is clear that although
Regulations were in force from 1992, plaintiff retired on 30th November,
2011 and after retirement received CPF benefits without any protest and Full Judgment
Supreme Court of India (Full Bench (FB)- Three Judge)
Appeal (Crl.), 467
of 2010, Judgment Date: Jan 03, 2017
Full Judgment
Supreme Court of India (Full Bench (FB)- Three Judge)
Writ Petition (Civil), 573
of 2003, Judgment Date: Jan 03, 2017
Full Judgment
Supreme Court of India (Full Bench (FB)- Three Judge)
Appeal (Civil), 4235
of 2014, Judgment Date: Jan 03, 2017
Full Judgment
Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)
Appeal (Crl.), 985
of 2016, Judgment Date: Jan 03, 2017
Full Judgment
Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)
Appeal (Civil), 96-97
of 2017, Judgment Date: Jan 03, 2017
Full Judgment
Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)
Appeal (Civil), 126
of 2017, Judgment Date: Jan 03, 2017
Full Judgment
Chhatisgarh High Court (Single Judge)
WPS->WRIT PETITON SERVICE MATTER, 4927
of 2016, Judgment Date: Jan 03, 2017
Full Judgment
Madhya Pradesh High Court (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)
CRA, 02419
of 2012, Judgment Date: Jan 03, 2017
Head Notes :
It is the settled position of law that mere recovery of amount is not sufficient to convict a person under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act if the same is not backed by demand and acceptance of bribe as an illegal gratification.
The proof of demand of illegal gratification, thus, is the gravamen of the offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) & (ii) of the Act and in absence thereof, unmistakably the charge therefor, would fail. Mere acceptance Full Judgment
Madhya Pradesh High Court (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)
MCRC, 15804
of 2016, Judgment Date: Jan 03, 2017
Full Judgment
Madhya Pradesh High Court (Single Judge)
FA, 04
of 1999, Judgment Date: Jan 03, 2017
Full Judgment
Madhya Pradesh High Court (Single Judge)
WRIT PETITION, 7357
of 2014, Judgment Date: Jan 03, 2017
Full Judgment
Chhatisgarh High Court (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)
CRA->CRIMINAL APPEAL, 441
of 2004, Judgment Date: Jan 03, 2017
Full Judgment
Chhatisgarh High Court (Single Judge)
WP->WRIT PETITION, 4927
of 2016, Judgment Date: Jan 03, 2017
Full Judgment
Madhya Pradesh High Court (Single Judge)
MCRC, 21551
of 2016, Judgment Date: Jan 03, 2017
Full Judgment
Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)
Appeal (Crl.), 1234
of 2007, Judgment Date: Jan 02, 2017
Full Judgment
