Judgments
SUNNY @ SUNNY YADAV & ORS VERSUS STATE GOVT. NCT OF DELHI & ANR
Sanjay Prasad @ Sanjay Kumar Gupta Versus The State of Bihar and Ors
M/s Vijay Energy Equipments Versus West Central Railway
Law Laid Down:- The applicant having failed to waive off the applicability of Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015, the respondent-Railways would be justified in invoking Clause 64(3) of the General Conditions of Contract, as amended by them after amendment of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 w.e.f. 23.10.2015, thereby forwarding the panel of three retired officers of Railways and calling upon the applicant to choose two of them for appointing one out of them as nominee Full Judgment
DEVENDER BALHARA VERSUS SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
P.C. MISHRA VERSUS CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
RAJA TYAGI VERSUS STATE (THE NCT OF DELHI) & ANR
Jagdish Singh Jatav vs. State of MP and Others
Dalendra Kanoje Versus Smt. Reena Kanoje
Lovekush Institute Of Nursing Gurukul College Parisar Versus State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors
Praveen Kumar Pandey Versus Sudeep Kumar Verma and Anr
MS. X VERSUS THE STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS.
Ankesh Gurjar @ Ankit Gurjar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Law Laid Down:- (1) The concept of arrest/apprehension in a police lockup/jail as contemplated by Chapter V of Cr.P.C. is not recognized in the Scheme of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. (2) The Juvenile as and when apprehended and detained is immediately sent to Observation Home/Fit facility/One-stop Home or any of the Institutions contemplated under 2015 Act either for the period of 24 hrs between arrest and production before the Board and also thereafter during pendency of Full Judgment
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ORS. Versus SMT. SURESHWATI
IN RE: ADVOCATE ON RECORD INCLUDES A PROPRIETARY FIRM ETC.
HARYANA SPACE APPLICATION CENTRE (HARSAC) & ANR. Versus M/S PAN INDIA CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD.
Khyaliram Vs. State of M.P. and others
Law laid down:- (1) There is no vested right to file a Second Appeal either under unamended Section 44(2)(b) or amended Sec.44(3)(b) M.P. Land Revenue Code. (2) Therefore, the remedy of Second Appeal which was otherwise available to the petitioner under the unamended MPLRC at the time of dismissal of his First Appeal, cannot be made available under the amended Sec.44(3)(b) M.P. Land Revenue Code not only because remedy of Second Appeal is not available after the amendment in the MPLRC Full Judgment