Judgments
KAYALULLA PARAMBATH MOIDU HAJI VERSUS NAMBOODIYIL VINODAN
T.V. RAMAKRISHNA REDDY VERSUS M. MALLAPPA & ANR.
Dr. Harish Kumar Khurana Versus Joginder Singh & Ors.
Shakuntala Shukla Versus State of Uttar Pradesh and Another
EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF BHALGORA AREA (NOW KUSTORE AREA) OF M/S BHARAT COKING COAL LTD. VERSUS WORKMEN BEING REPRESENTED BY JANTA MAZDOOR SANGH
ANURAG SHARMA VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ANR
ASHISH KUMAR VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ANR
BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED (NZ) VERSUS CHANNEL VAS SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD.
SUSHIL DUTT VERSUS ESTATE OFFICER/ AOC & ANR
Kumari Vaishnavi Vs. The Union of India through the Secretary
ESTATE OFFICER AND ANR. VERSUS CHARANJIT KAUR
The STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS. VERSUS PUJARI UTTHAN AVAM KALYAN SAMITI & ANR.
M/s. Indsil Hydro Power and Manganese Limited vs. State of Kerala and Ors.
ASSISTANT EXCISE COMMISSIONER, KOTTAYAM & ORS. VERSUS ESTHAPPAN CHERIAN & ANR.
Suresh Kumar Kurve Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and others
Law laid down - 1. Non-grant of increment during period of suspension does not amount to penalty as increments are paid for period spent on duty in a time-scale. During suspension delinquent employee is not on duty, therefore, non-grant of increment during suspension will not amount to penalty. 2. Obiter is not binding but ratio decidendi have binding precedent. Full Judgment
Basant Shravanekar and others Vs. The State of M.P. and others.
Law laid down - 1. Section 47 of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961 - The personal presence of councilors who have submitted the proposal/resolution before the Collector is not necessary. The Collector is best suited to decide the mode of verification but personal presence of councilors is not a statutory requirement. 2. Section 47(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961- 3/4 number of councilors moved a proposal for recalling the President. They attended the hearing before the Collector on two Full Judgment