Judgments
MADAN RAZAK Vs. STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
S.E.B.I. Vs. MAGNUM EQUITY SERVICES LTD. & ORS.
State of Chhattisgarh and another V/s Chandra Bhan Singh and others
D.N. JEEVARAJ Vs. CHIEF SEC., GOVT. OF KARNATAKA & ORS.
This Court has repeatedly held that where discretion is required to be exercised by a statutory authority, it must be permitted to do so. It is not for the courts to take over the discretion available to a statutory authority and render a decision. In the present case, the High Court has virtually taken over the function of the BDA by requiring it to take action against Sadananda Gowda and Full Judgment
Ramlal Sharma V/s State of Chhattisgarh Through-Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, & Ors.
STATE OF H.P.& ORS. Vs. ASHWANI KUMAR & ORS.
We make it clear that to maintain certainty in the judicial decision, we have to restrain from interfering with the decision of the High Court which has stood for a long period on the principle of stare decisis. However, the said principle will be applicable where the meaning of the Statute is ambiguous and capable of more interpretation than one. In Full Judgment
STATE OF U.P. & ORS. Vs. UNITED BANK OF INDIA
The doctrine of legitimate expectation ordinarily would not have any application when the legislature has enacted a statute. The legitimate expectation should be legitimate, reasonable and valid. For the application of doctrine of legitimate expectation, any representation or promise should be made by an authority. A person unconnected with the authority, who had Full Judgment
CHAIRMAN SEBI Vs. ROOFIT INDUSTRIES LTD.
A.R. DAHIYA Vs. SECURITIES & EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA&ORS
STATE OF UP AND ORS Vs. AJAY KUMAR SHARMA AND ANR
What then should be the position in regard to the effect of the law pronounced by a Division Bench in relation to a case raising the same point subsequently before a Division Bench of a smaller number of Judges? There is no constitutional or statutory prescription in the matter, and the point is governed entirely by the practice in India of the courts sanctified by repeated affirmation over a century of time. Full Judgment
M/S SHREE BHAGWATI STEEL ROLLING MILLS Vs. COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE & ANR.
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE Vs. M/S NESTLE INDIA LTD
K.S. SOUNDARARAJAN AND ORS. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF H.R. & C.E. AND ORS.
COMMERCIAL TAXES OFFICER Vs. A INFRASTRUCTURE LTD
SHAMSHER SINGH VERMA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA
Special Judge, Kaithal, in Sessions Case No. 33 of 2014, and rejected the application of the accused for getting exhibited the compact disc, filed in defence and to get the same proved from Forensic Science Laboratory. The only point of relevance at present is whether the accused has been denied right of defence or not. In Ziyauddin Barhanuddin Bukhari vs. Brijmohan Ramdass Mehra and Full Judgment
SECURITIES & EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA Vs. ICAP INDIA PVT. LTD.
BRIJ BIHARI SINGH Vs. BIHAR STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION & ORS.(R-1,4,7)
It is well settled that a person who is required to answer a charge imposed should know not only the accusation but also the testimony by which the accusation is supported. The delinquent must be given fair chance to hear the evidence in support of the charge and to cross-examine the witnesses who prove the charge. The delinquent must also be given a chance to Full Judgment