Judgments
Narad Tamrakar Versus State of Chhattisgarh
Panchu Ram Thakur Versus State of Chhattisgarh
Smt. Neelam Dewangan Versus State of Chhattisgarh
Abhay Nigam & Others Vs. Union of India & Others
Law laid down - The Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002 - Section 5 – Attachment of Property – The attachment order passed by Competent Authority in exercise of power under Section 5 is tentative/provisional in nature. Thus, the “reason to believe” in passing such order is also provisional in nature subject to its confirmation by the “adjudicating authority”. Section 8 of The Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002 – The adjudicating authority is under a statutory obligation to examine the complaint Full Judgment
DR. VIVEK KUMAR & ORS VERSUSUNION OF INDIA AND ORS
WILLOWOOD CHEMICALS PVT. LTD. VERSUS INDO-SWISS CHEMICALS LTD. & ANR
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. VERSUS M/S. RAJ GROW IMPEX LLP & ORS.
Saurav Kumar Sharma Vs. The State of Bihar
Bhisham Lal Banchhor Versus State of Chhattisgarh
S.S. Som Versus State of Chhattisgarh
Purshottam Patwar Versus State of Chhattisgarh and Ors
Sudesh Kumar Rai and Anr Versus State of Chhattisgarh
NATASHA NARWAL VERSUS STATE OF DELHI NCT
DEVANGANA KALITA VERSUS STATE OF DELHI NCT
Piyush Kumar Sheth Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Others
Law laid down - 1. Government contract/tender - Notice inviting tender (NIT)-- Cancellation of – Judicial review – Judicial review is limited to see whether order/action is arbitrary, capricious, malafide or hits wednesbury principle – The element of public interest is also relevant which needs to be looked into. 2. Single tender - CVC guidelines – In the light of CVC guideline, it cannot be said that the decision to cancel the single tender is either arbitrary or unreasonable or actuated with malafide. Full Judgment