Judgments
Smt. Mamta Rai Vs. State Of U.P. & 8 Others
Once it has been found that Indra Dev had no right over the property in question, obviously his heirs also had no right, based upon inheritence, to transfer the same. There is no error of jurisdiction or failure of justice in the matter, which may require any interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Petition fails and is dismissed. Full Judgment
M/s Mile Stone Soft. Tech. Pvt. Ltd. Vs Nidhi Chhibber
M/S. SERVO-MED INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. Vs. COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI
COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, KERALA Vs. M/S. TRAVANCORE SUGARS & CHEMICALS LTD.
STATE OF A.P. Vs. P.VENKATESHWARLU
The demand and acceptance of the amount as illegal gratification is a sine qua non for constituting an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The prosecution is duty bound to establish that there was illegal offer of bribe and acceptance thereof and it has to be founded on facts. The offence under Section 7 of P.C. Act has been confirmed by the Full Judgment
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Vs. KESAVAPATNAM CHINA SWAMY
KIRSHNA TEXPORT & CAPITAL MARKETS LTD. Vs. ILA A AGRAWAL & ORS.
K.S. RAVINDRAN Vs. BRANCH MANAGR,NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD
STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. Vs. CALCUTTA MINERAL SUPPLY CO.P.LTD. & ORS.
ZONAL.GEN.MANAGER,IRCON INTER.NATNL.LTD. Vs. M/S VINAY HEAVY EQUIPMENTS
M/S. B.P.L. LTD. Vs. COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CALICUT
NON-REPORTABLE Full Judgment
M/S. COAL HANDLERS PVT. LTD. Vs. COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, KOLKATA
M/S. SECURE METERS LTD. Vs. COMMNR. OF CUSTOMS, NEW DELHI
K.RADHIKA Vs. T.RAJYA LAXMI & ORS.
It consists of innumerable errors. We only hope that it is not the desire of the High Court that such candidates are required to be appointed merely because they have the higher grade qualification. We, therefore, allow the appeal and set aside the judgment under appeal. Full Judgment
Shri Ram Naresh Yadav Versus State of M.P. and others
Smt. Premwati Devi Vs. State Of U.P. & Another
Having considered the aforesaid submissions, this court finds that the application to withdraw the suit in appeal has been filed under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC, which was rightly held to be not maintainable as there was no compromise between the parties. Even otherwise, the suit has been dismissed on merits and also applications for amendment have been rejected. Full Judgment