Judgments
Uttam Chand Verma & Anr. v. State of M.P. & Ano.
Upendra Tripathi & another Vs. State of M.P. & another
COMMISSIONER CENTRAL EXCISE Vs. M/S.UNITED SPIRITS LTD.& ANR.
In view of the aforesaid analysis, we are constrained to remit the matter to the tribunal for reconsideration of the aforesaid aspects on the basis of observations made hereinabove and the law in the field. However, we may proceed to state that we have not expressed anything on the merits of the case including the imposition of penalty and interest. We expect the tribunal shall advert to each Full Judgment
SECRETARY MAHATAMA GANDHI MISSION & ARN. Vs. BHARTIYA KAMGAR SENA AND ORS
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH SECRETARY, LAND & BUILDING DEPARTMENT & ANR. Vs. GAUTAM CHOPRA & ORS.
GAUTAM JAIN Vs. U.O.I.& ANR.
This provision commands communication of the grounds on which the order of detention has been passed and to afford him the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order. In the instant case, the documents containing the statement of Pooran Chand Sharma were not given and for this very reason, the High Court rightly held that such a ground cannot be relied upon by the respondents in support Full Judgment
GOPAL AND SONS (HUF) Vs. CIT KOLKATA-XI
M/S PATEL BROTHERS Vs. STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS.
VIJENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF U.P.
STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. Vs. ABDUL ALI AND ORS.
Divisional Railway Manager Versus Public Utility Permanent Lok Adalat Oth.
PEPSU ROAD TPT CORPN, PATIALA Vs. AMANDEEP SINGH & ORS.
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