Judgments
Puspraj Singh Baghel Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh & others
Law Laid Down - Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Madhya Pradesh Motoryan Karadhan Adhiniyam, 1991 raises a statutory presumption that if the certificate of registration is valid, the transport vehicle is presumed to be in use or kept for use. The same cannot be disputed only for the reason that in absence of fitness certificate, the owner of the vehicle is absolved to pay the tax under the said Adhiniyam. Followed: Division Bench judgment dated 03.10.2017 rendered in W.P. No.14557/2017 Full Judgment
MAHARANA PRATAP COLLEGE OF DENTISTRY & RESEARCH CENTRE Vs. THE UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS
Ajay Kumar Dohar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others
Law laid down - The removal or disqualification of an elected representative has serious repercussion, therefore, elected representative must not be removed unless a clear-cut case is made out. The requirement of furnishing of election expenses is a step to ensure proper maintenance of accounts. Such condition is only a procedure to achieve the said object, thus, not a mandatory condition. The technicality of non-opening of bank account for incurring the election expenses through the bank account cannot be a ground to Full Judgment
Mrs. Lynette Fernandes Versus Mrs. Gertie Mathias since Deceased by Lrs.
HARVEER SINGH Vs. DELHI POWER SUPPLY CO. LTD. THRU CHAIRMAN
Hari Sinha Versus Gurupad Sambhav Ram
Narbada Vs. The State of M.P
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. VERSUS BENGAL SHRACHI HOUSING DEVELOPMENT LIMITED & ANR
Smt Sangeeta Soni Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & others
Rajesh Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of M.P.
ENERGY WATCHDOG Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS
Suresh Kumar through GPA VERSUS Anil Kakaria & Ors.
The State of Uttar Pradesh VERSUS Tribhuwan & Ors.
SANJIVAYYA MEMORIAL TRUST & ANR. Vs. ANJU HARIT & ANR.
M/S FAIRGROWTH EXPORTS (P) LTD. Vs. SANJAY CHAUDHARY
SHARMA FABRICATORS & ERECTORS PVT. LTD Vs. BILT GRAPHIC PAPER PRODUCTS LTD.
T.P. Sharma Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others
Law laid down - "If an employee has worked for less than 90 days in a department, whether his CR could be considered by the DPC for promotion - Held- No. "Whether the claim of the petitioner could not be ignored by taking into consideration the uncommunicated annual confidential report- Held- Yes. Full Judgment