Judgments
ABDUL MAJID AND ORS VERSUS EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION AND ORS
APEX INSTITUTE OF AYURVEDA SCIENCES , APEX UNIVERSITY VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ANR
AYESHA CHENOY ALIAS AYESHA MITRA CHENOY VERSUS KAMAL MITRA CHENOY ALIAS KAMAL ARON MITRA CHENOY & ORS
DR. ARUN KUMAR MISHRA VERSUS UNION OF INDIA
KARAN CHAUDHRY VERSUS INDIRA GANDHI NATIONAL OPEN UNIVERSITY AND ORS
LARSEN & TOUBRO LIMITED & ANR VERSUS PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK AND ANR
MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA VERSUS EAST DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ANR
Rajeev Kumar Jain Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others
Law laid down - If the detenu is in custody at the time of passing the detention order then it is necessary for the Detaining Authority to mention this fact in the detention order and also consider the prospects of release of the detenu on bail and apprehension that the detenu would indulge in prejudicial activities in case of his release on bail. The non-application of mind by the Detaining Authority or nonrecording of satisfaction in this regard vitiates the detention Full Judgment
Smt. Neha Jain and others Vs. State of M.P. and another
Indu @ Indrapal Singh and another Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh
Gopal Krishna Gautam alias Pandit Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.
Law laid down:- 1. Sections 35, 54 and 66 under NDPS Act raise presumptions (which are rebuttable) over accused to prove his innocence, although the standard of proof required for the accused to prove his innocence is Preponderance of Probability which accused shall have to establish. NDPS Act carries reverse burden of proof under Sections 35 and 54. Noor Aga Vs. State of Punjab, (2008) 16 SCC 417 relied. 2. An initial burden exists upon the prosecution and when it stands satisfied, Full Judgment
Batsiya and ors. Vs. Ramgovind and ors.
Law Laid Down:- 1. Once examination-in-chief is affirmed by way of filing it before the trial Court, thereafter, it is not possible to withdraw the said affidavit. Deponent may file an affidavit subsequent to it and to add or supplement the facts for the reason that order XVIII Rule 4 of CPC does not limit itself to a single affidavit but nonetheless deponent ought not be allowed to keep on filing fresh affidavits to keep improving his case in routine manner. 2. Full Judgment
In Reference (Suo Moto) Vs. Manoj
ARUNA VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
DR. J.A. JAYALAL, NATIONAL PRESIDENT, INDIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION VERSUS ROHIT JHA
MOHD. AZIM VERSUS DDA & ANOTHER
Mohamad Ibrahim Vs. Shri R. K. Mishra
Law laid down - 4. Jurisdiction under Article 215 of the Constitution shall not be exercised to make provision of Section 20 of Contempt of Court Act, 1971 otiose nor Section 20 be interpreted strictly to render power under Article 215 of the Constitution nugatory. Article 215 of the Constitution and Section 20 of Contempt of Court Act is to be construed harmoniously and only in exceptional or blatant case of contempt High Court shall exercise power beyond period of one Full Judgment