Judgments - Interpretation
PARESH DAMODARDAS MAHANT Vs ARUN DAMODARDAS MAHANT AND 3 ORS.
MANISH TRIVEDI VERSUS STATE OF RAJASTHAN
Arathi Bandi VERSUS Bandi Jagadrakshaka Rao & Ors.
Centre for Environment & Food Security Versus Union of India & Ors.
Jai Prakash Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.
Fatma Bibi Ahmed Patel Versus State of Gujarat & Anr.
M.Nagaraj & Others Vs Union of India & Others
CONCLUSION: The impugned constitutional amendments by which Articles 16(4A) and 16(4B) have been inserted flow from Article 16(4). They do not alter the structure of Article 16(4). They retain the controlling factors or the compelling reasons, namely, backwardness and inadequacy of representation which enables the States to provide for reservation keeping in mind the overall efficiency of the State administration under Article 335. These impugned amendments are confined only to Full Judgment
Union Of India And Anr vs Ashok Kumar Mitra
AJAY AGARWAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS
Subrato Shaha Versus State of Bihar and Anr.
Dr. Arvind C. Shah vs State Of Gujarat
K.R.K. Vara Prasad vs Union Of India
State Of West Bengal Etc vs Manmal Bhutoria & Ors. Etc
HEADNOTE: In May 1967 a case was lodged against the respondent and a Major of the Indian Army who was retired in 1966, alleging that the Major, along with the respondent, had committed offences of conspiracy of criminal misconduct by a public servant in dishonestly abusing his position as a public servant, under s. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. When the case, which was allotted to the Fourth Additional Special Court under s. 4(.2) of the West Bengal Full Judgment
Ramkrishna Baburao Maske vs Kishan Shivraj Shelke
STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. LEELA JAIN
The preamble may, no doubt, be used to solve any ambiguity or to fix the meaning of words which may have more than one meaning, but it can, however, not be used to eliminate as redundant or unintended, the operative provisions of a statute. Full Judgment
S. A. Venkataraman vs The State(And Connected Appeal)
HEADNOTE: The appellant who was a public servant was dismissed from service after departmental inquiry. Thereafter he was charged with having committed the offence of criminal misconduct under S. 5(2), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and was convicted. No sanction under s. 6 of the Act was produced, before the trial Court. It was contended that the Court could not take cognizance of the offence without there being a proper sanction to prosecute : Held, that no sanction under s. Full Judgment