Judgments
BALRAJ @ LADI Vs. STATE
Kamini Jaiswal Vs. Union of India & Anr.
THE STATE OF TRIPURA & ORS. VERSUS JAYANTA CHAKRABORTY & ORS.
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED VERSUS STATE OF BIHAR & ANR.
Sivanandan C.T. & Ors. Versus High Court of Kerala & Ors.
Suresh Patel Versus State of M.P.
Law laid down - Scope of interference under Section 397 CrPC against an order framing charge, power should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare case. The court should apply the test as to whether uncontroverted allegation available from the record of the case and the documents, prima facie does not establish any offence and the basic ingredients of the offence are not satisfied, then the Court may interfere. Merely non-return of mortgaged Full Judgment
Santosh S/o Nana Kahar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
JAYKRISHNA INDUSTRIES LTD. THROUGH DIRECTOR VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
State of Uttarakhand VERSUS Jairnail Singh
Prasadi Devi VERSUS Nagar Palika Sawai Madhopur, (Now Nagar Parishad)
MR. SACHIN GANPATI DAVANDE Vs THE CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR, MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED AND ORS
SHRI. VIKAR ANSAR SHAIKH AND ORS Vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THROUGH SECRETARY, PLANNING DEPT AND ANR
Shailendra Kumhare Versus State Of Chhattisgarh
Suresh Mathur(since deceased) through his LRs vs. Yogesh Chawla
Munawwar Ali & others Versus Union of India & others
Law Laid Down - Merely because a person has a locus standi to file the writ petition, does not mean that he is entitled to any equitable or legal relief in writ jurisdiction. Equitable relief on the ground of adverse possession against the State - Negated. Supreme Court judgments reported as (2000) 5 SCC 652 (State of Rajasthan vs. Harphool Singh); (2011) 10 SCC 404 (State of Haryana vs. Mukesh Kumar) and (2014) 1 SCC 669 (Gurdwara Sahib vs. Gram Panchayat Village Full Judgment