Judgments - Supreme Court of India
PARHLAD AND ANR. Vs. THE STATE OF HARYANA
RAMESH KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
In normal circumstances when retrospective promotions are effected, all benefits flowing therefrom, including monetary benefits, must be extended to an employee who has been denied promotion earlier. The principle of “no work no pay” would not be attracted where the respondents were in fault in not considering the case of the appellant for promotion and not allowing Full Judgment
YAKUB ABDUL RAZAK MEMON Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
PEERAPPA HANMANTHA HARIJAN(D) BY LRS.&OR Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA
SHABINA ABRAHAM & ORS. Vs. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE & CUSTOMS
M/S. POONAM SPARK (P) LTD. Vs. COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NEW DELHI
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Vs. M/S. N.S. RATHNAM & SONS
RAJESHWAR BABURAO BONE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR
RAJENDRA SHANKAR SHUKLA AND ORS. ETC. Vs. STATE OF CHHATISGARH AND ORS. ETC. ETC.
YAKUB ABDUL RAZAK MEMON Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THR. THE SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT AND ORS.
V.K.MISHRA & ANR. Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ANR.
Court cannot suo moto make use of statements to police not proved and ask question with reference to them which are inconsistent with the testimony of the witness in the court. The words in Section 162 Cr.P.C. “if duly proved” clearly show that the record of the statement of witnesses cannot be admitted in evidence straightway nor can be looked into but they Full Judgment
YAKUB ABDUL RAZAK MEMON Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THR. THE SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT AND ORS.
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE VAPI Vs. M/S GLOBAL HEALTH CARE PRODUCTS LTD.&ORS
GURJANT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB
ESHWARAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. SHIVA @SHIVAJI RAMAJI SONAWANE & ORS
NANJAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA
A plain reading of Section 19(1) (supra) leaves no manner of doubt that the same is couched in mandatory terms and forbids courts from taking cognizance of any offence punishable under Sections 7, 10, 11, 13 and 15 against public servants except with the previous sanction of the competent authority enumerated in clauses (a), (b) and (c) to sub-section (1) of Section 19. The provision contained Full Judgment
BHANUSHALI HSG. COOP. SOCIETY LTD. Vs. MANGILAL & ORS.
The short question that arises for consideration in this appeal, by special leave, is whether a dispute arising out of a contract for sale and purchase of immovable property owned by the respondents was amenable to adjudication under Section 64 of the M.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. Full Judgment
SHRI DILIP K. BASU Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.
To sum up: 1. The States of Delhi, Himachal Pradesh, Mizoram, Arunachal Pradesh, Meghalaya, Tripura and Nagaland shall within a period of six months from today set up State Human Rights Commissions for their respective territories with or without resort to provisions of Section 21(6) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993. 2. All vacancies, Full Judgment