Judgments - Interpretation
LOK PRAHARI THR.ITS GNRL.SECY,S.N.SHUKLA Vs. STATE OF U.P.AND ORS.
STATE OF U.P. & ORS Vs. ALL U.P. CONSUMER PROTECTION BAR ASS.
JINDAL STAINLESS LTD.& ANR. Vs. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.
THE PUNJAB TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT ACT, 2004 - ADVISORY JURISDICTION
VOLUNTARY HEALTH ASS. OF PUNJAB Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
T.S.DAS & ORS. Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS Vs. JAGJIT SINGH AND ORS
Having traversed the legal parameters with reference to the application of the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’, in relation to temporary employees (daily-wage employees, ad-hoc appointees, employees appointed on casual basis, contractual employees and the like), the sole factor that requires our determination is, whether the concerned employees (before this Court), were rendering similar duties and responsibilities, as were Full Judgment
HET RAM BENIWAL & ORS. Vs. RAGHUVEER SINGH & ORS
It has been held by this Court that judges need not be protected and that they can take care of themselves. It is the right and interest of the public in the due administration of justice that have to be protected. See Asharam M. Jain v. A. T. Gupta, reported in (1983) 4 SCC 125. Vilification of judges would lead to the destruction of the system of administration of justice. The statements made by the Full Judgment
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Vs. M/S. CIPLA LTD. & ANR
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. Vs. M/S MEGHMANI ORGANICS LTD.& ORS
M/S DUGAR TEA INDUSTRIES PVT.LTD. Vs. STATE OF ASSAM & ORS
HIRAL P. HARSORA AND ORS. Vs. KUSUM NAROTTAMDAS HARSORA AND ORS
GOV.BODY,L.P SHAHI COLLEGE, PATNA & ANR Vs. SEEMA MISHRA AND ORS
TATTU LODHI @ PANCHAM LODHI Vs. STATE OF M.P
GOVINDASWAMY Vs. STATE OF KERALA
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. SUKHBIR SINGH & ORS
DHARIWAL INDUSTRIES LTD. Vs. KISHORE WADHWANI & ORS
PRABHU CHAWLA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR.
M/S SHANTI CONDUCTORS(P) LTD. & ANR. Vs. ASSAM STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD & ORS.
ASHIQ HUSSAIN FAKTOO Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
The principle of ex debito justitiae is founded on a recognition of a debt that the justice delivery system owes to a litigant to correct an error in a judicial dispensation. Its application, by the very nature of things, cannot be made to depend on varying perceptions of legal omissions and commissions but such recognition of the debt which have the potential of opening new vistas of Full Judgment