Judgments - Supreme Court of India
STATE OF U.P AND ORS. Vs. DR. DINESH SINGH CHAUHAN
30. As aforesaid, Regulations have been framed by an Expert Body based on past experience and including the necessity to reckon the services and experience gained by the in-service candidates in notified remote and difficult areas in the State. The proviso prescribes the measure for giving incentive marks to in-service candidates who have worked in notified remote and Full Judgment
BABURAO Vs. POKHARDAS(D) TR.LRS.
VIRENDER KHULLAR Vs. AMERICAN CONSOLIDATION SERVICES LD.& ORS
MUKESH NAYYAR (NAIYAR) Vs. MADHU NAYYAR (NAIYAR) & ORS.
B.H. KHAWAS Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Indubitably, if the argument of the appellant was accepted, it would inevitably mean that all appointments made before 28.11.2000 must be protected even though it had not become final. That would also mean that all caste certificates issued to persons belonging to “Koshti” community, as being “Halba” Scheduled Tribe in Maharashtra, prior to November 28, 2000 (the day on which Milind’s case was decided Full Judgment
KALA @ CHANDRAKALA Vs. STATE TR.INSP.OF POLICE
The prosecution has not been able to complete the chain of circumstances so as to fasten the guilt and to prove the commission of offence by the appellant beyond periphery of doubt. The appellant is acquitted giving her the benefit of doubt. Full Judgment
Y.NAJITHAMOL & ORS. Vs. SOUMYA S.D.& ORS.
Having concluded that the selection of Extra Departmental Agents or Gramin Dak Sevaks to the post of Postman under Column 11(2)(ii) of the Recruitment Rules is only by way of direct recruitment and not by way of promotion, the question of whether reservation for candidates belonging to OBC category is allowed becomes easier to answer. It has now been well settled by a nine judge Bench of this Court in the case of Indra Sawhney v. Full Judgment
NARAYANA PILLAI RAMANPILLAI & ANR. Vs. SIVASANAKARA PILLAI(DEAD) THR.LRS & ORS.
M/S RAYALA CORP. PVT LTD Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CHE
SMT. B. NARASAMMA Vs. DY.COMMR.COMMERCIAL TAXES KARNATAKA &ANR
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ORS. Vs. RAJIV BERRY & ORS.
MUNICIPAL CORP OF DELHI Vs. NORTH DELHI POWER LTD. [NOW - TATA POWER DELHI DISTRIBUTION LTD.] AND ANR.
AMBIKA SAVAARIA & ORS. Vs. SANJAY SHARMA & ORS.
TAMILNADU TERMINATED FULL TIME TEMPORARY LIC EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION Vs. S.K. ROY, THE CHAIRMAN, LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA AND ANR.
VIJAY KUMAR MISHRA AND ANR Vs. HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA TO AND ORS
GUJARAT URJA VIKAS NIGAM LTD. Vs. ESSAR POWER LIMITED
M/S HCL INFOSYSTEM LTD Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
The question for consideration relates to the jurisdiction of the Special Judge appointed under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (the “PC Act”) to try a person other than a public servant if the public servant dies before the commencement of the trial. Further question is whether the Special Judge can try a non PC Act case when his appointment is to try all cases of the Full Judgment