Judgments
M/s S.V.E.C. Construction Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & others
Law Laid Down - The question whether time is essence of contract or not, depends upon the intention of the parties. Here, the petitioner sought modification of work order so as to complete it within the time granted and then himself chose todetermine the contract. Thus, he understood that the time was essence of the contract. Such conduct of the petitioner as well as on behalf of the respondents shows that the parties intended to complete the contract within time frame. Full Judgment
Goutam Singh Karoliya and another Vs. State of M.P. and another
Awdhesh Singh Bhadauria Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.
STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) VERSUS PANKAJ CHAUDHARY AND ORS.
STATE OF MIZORAM VERSUS DR. C. SANGNGHINA
MANAGEMENT, HINDUSTAN MACHINE TOOLS LTD. VERSUS GHANSHYAM SHARMA
J.S. Luthra Academy & Another Versus State of Jammu and Kashmir & Others
STAR INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL POLICY AND PROMOTION & ORS.
Touheed Musalman Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Law laid down - It is not appropriate to award ‘death sentence’ in every case. To award death sentence, some factors are necessary to be considered, such as the age of culprit, manner of commission of offence and possibilities of reformation of accused, etc. Full Judgment
State of Madhya Pradesh & others Vs. Jagdeo Singh
Law Laid Down - Non-payment of some retiral dues on account of pendency of the revision against an order of acquittal of the writ-petitioner cannot be said to be a contumacious act on behalf of the State to deprive the writ-petitioner of his retiral dues. It was an action possible in law. However, since there is some delay, interest @6% per annum is ordered to be paid on the retiral dues to settle the equities between the parties. - Supreme Court Full Judgment
State of Madhya Pradesh & others Vs. Ramlal Mahobia
Law Laid Down - The question of award of interest by the writ court is not controlled or regulated by Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. It is the Interest Act, 1978, which empowers the Court to allow interest but at the rate not exceeding the current rate of interest in terms of Section 2(b) of the said Act. After discharging duties as an employee, it is the right of the employee to get salary; therefore, if the salary Full Judgment