Judgments
Nand Kumar Sahu Nand Kumar Sahu Vs Satyanarayan Sharma
HC PRADEEP KUMAR RAI & ORS. Vs. DINESH KUMAR PANDEY & ORS.
MOHAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASHTAN
THE CHAIRMAN & MNG.DIR., TNHB & ANR. Vs. S. SARASWATHY & ORS.
SELVI J. JAYALALITHA Vs STATE, BY THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, VIGILANCE AND ANTI-CORRUPTION SPECIAL INVESTIGATION CELL CHENNAI
State Of U.P. Through Principal Secy. And Others Vs. Rajendra Singh And Another
State Of U.P. Through Principal Secy. And Others Vs. Rajendra Singh And Another
Devraj Gupta Vs State of Chhattisgarh
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Vs. HANUMAN INDUSTRIES & ANR.
SANJEEV KUMAR GUPTA Vs. STATE OF U.P.(NOW UTTARAKHAND)
PURUSHOTTAM DASHRATH BORATE & ANR. Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Smt. Mamta Rai Vs. State Of U.P. & 8 Others
Once it has been found that Indra Dev had no right over the property in question, obviously his heirs also had no right, based upon inheritence, to transfer the same. There is no error of jurisdiction or failure of justice in the matter, which may require any interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Petition fails and is dismissed. Full Judgment
M/s Mile Stone Soft. Tech. Pvt. Ltd. Vs Nidhi Chhibber
M/S. SERVO-MED INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. Vs. COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI
COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, KERALA Vs. M/S. TRAVANCORE SUGARS & CHEMICALS LTD.
STATE OF A.P. Vs. P.VENKATESHWARLU
The demand and acceptance of the amount as illegal gratification is a sine qua non for constituting an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The prosecution is duty bound to establish that there was illegal offer of bribe and acceptance thereof and it has to be founded on facts. The offence under Section 7 of P.C. Act has been confirmed by the Full Judgment
