Judgments - CR.A
SARVESH BANSAL & ANR Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS
KESHAVLAL KHEMCHAND AND SONS PVT LTD AND ORS Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, X Vs. REGISTRAR GENERAL, HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.
ASSAM SANMILITA MAHASANGHA & ORS. Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
M/S NOVA ADS Vs. METROPOLITAN TANSP.CORP.& ORS.
Deaf Employees Welfare Association & Anr versus Union of India and Ors
Samta Aandolan Samiti & Anr. Versus UOI and Ors
AKHILESH YADAV VS VISHWANATH CHATURVEDI & ORS
The scope of a review petition is very limited and the submissions advanced were made mainly on questions of fact. As has been repeatedly indicated by this Court, review of a judgment on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record is permissible, but an error apparent on the face of the record has to be decided on the facts of each Full Judgment
Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Centre for Environment & Food Security Versus Union of India & Ors.
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