Judgments
PURVI MUKESH GADA VERSUS MUKESH POPATLAL GADA & ANR.
BANSAL PLYWOOD Vs. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ORS.
JALIWALI MASJID AND ARABI MADARSA, MUMBAI Vs HAJI ABDUL RAZZAQUE HAJI AHMED CHHAPRA, MUMBAI AND OTHERS
RAJU @ AHMED ISMAIL SAYYED (C-4739) Vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Defence Estate Officer, Agra Vs. Sri Santosh Sharma And 2 Others
DHRUBA KUMAR SAHA & ANR. VS aR.N. SINGH & 3 ORS.
THE STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH & 4 ORS. VS M/S TAMA FABRICATION WORKS & ANR.
Nitin Pathak - V/s - State of M.P. & Others
(1) In exercise of power of Judicial Review, the Court should not refer the matter to court appointed expert as the courts have a very limited role particularly when no mala fides have been alleged against the experts constituted to finalize answer key. It would normally be prudent, wholesome and safe for the courts to leave the decisions to the academicians and experts. (2) Secondly this Court does not and should not act as Court of Appeal in the matter of Full Judgment
ANIL KUMAR SINGH Vs. M/S MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA FINANCE SERVICE PVT LTD
NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA Vs. BBEL-MIPL (JV)
Apparaju Malhar Rao VERSUS Tula Venkataiah @ Venkat Rao (Dead) & Ors.
The High Court cannot proceed to hear a second appeal without formulating the substantial question of law involved in the appeal and if it does so it acts illegally and in abnegation or abdication of the duty case on Court. The existence of substantial question of law is the sine qua non for the exercise of the jurisdiction under the amended Section 100 of the Code. Full Judgment