Judgments - Supreme Court of India
Dubaria Vs. Har Prasad & Anr.
Anil Kumar Jain vs Maya Jain
G. Someshwar Rao Vs. Samineni Nageshwar Rao & Anr.
C.M. Girish Babu Vs CBI, Cochin, High Court of Kerala
The mere recovery by itself cannot prove the charge of the prosecution against the accused, in the absence of any evidence to prove payment of bribe or to show the accused voluntarily accepted the money knowing it to be bribe. that it is not enough that some currency notes were handed over to the public servant to make it acceptance of gratification and prosecution has a further duty to prove that what was paid amounted to gratification, 19. It is well settled Full Judgment
M/s. Kumar Exports Vs. M/s. Sharma Carpets
Saroja v. Chinnusamy (Dead) by Lrs. and Anr.[
MALLAVARAPU KASIVISWESWARA RAO Vs. THADIKONDA RAMULU FIRM and Ors.
Fatma Bibi Ahmed Patel Versus State of Gujarat & Anr.
MAUSAMI MOITRA GANGULI VERSUS JAYANT GANGULI
Krishna Janardhan Bhat versus Dattatraya G. Hegde
BHAGYODAY COOP. BANK LTD. Vs. NATVARLAL K. PATEL
Smt. J. Yashoda Vs. Smt. K. Shobha Rani
Everest Advertising Pvt. Ltd versus State, Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors
CHANDRAPPA & ORS Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA
Sujata Uday Patil Vs. Uday Madhukar Patil
Sankar Dastidar VS Shrimati Banjula Dastidar & 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