Judgments - Interpretation
STATE OF U.P AND ORS. Vs. DR. DINESH SINGH CHAUHAN
30. As aforesaid, Regulations have been framed by an Expert Body based on past experience and including the necessity to reckon the services and experience gained by the in-service candidates in notified remote and difficult areas in the State. The proviso prescribes the measure for giving incentive marks to in-service candidates who have worked in notified remote and Full Judgment
VIJAY KUMAR MISHRA AND ANR Vs. HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA TO AND ORS
ARVIND KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U.P.& ORS.
CCE,AHMEDABAD Vs. M/S GUJARAT AMBUJA EXPORTS LTD.
The issue involved in the present appeal is whether the respondent/assessee is entitled to avail the benefit of Notification No. 21/2002-Cus dated 01.03.2002 read with Notification No. 66/2004-Cus dated 09.07.2004 for import of crude palm oil (non-edible grade) which is not used in the manufacture of Industrial Fatty Acid whereas the assessee is using the same for manufacturing the refined edible oil. In the instant Full Judgment
SWAMI ACHYUTANAND TIRTH & ORS. Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
The present writ petition is filed in public interest by the petitioners highlighting the menace of growing sales of adulterated and synthetic milk in different parts of the country. Considering the seriousness of the matter and in the light of various orders passed by this Court, the Writ Petition is disposed of with the following directions and observations:- i. Full Judgment
LOK PRAHARI Vs. STATE OF U.P. & ORS.
SANTOSH SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR
There is a tendency on the part of public interest petitioners to assume that every good thing which society should aspire to achieve can be achieved through the instrumentality of the court. The judicial process provides remedies for constitutional or legal infractions. Public interest litigation allows a relaxation of the strict rules of locus standi. However, the court must necessarily abide Full Judgment
AVTAR SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS
MUTHURAMALINGAM & ORS. Vs. STATE REP.BY INSP.OF POLICE
“Whether consecutive life sentences can be awarded to a convict on being found guilty of a series of murders for which he has been tried in a single trial?.” 17. The legal position is, thus, fairly well settled that imprisonment for life is a sentence for the remainder of the life of the offender unless of course the remaining sentence is commuted or remitted by the competent authority. That being Full Judgment
BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET Vs. CRICKET AASOCIATION OF BIHAR & ORS.
V. VASANTHAKUMAR Vs. H.C. BHATIA AND ORS
In view of cases pending in the Supreme Court of India on average for about 5 years, in the High Courts again for about 8 years, and anywhere between 5- 10 years in the Trial Courts on the average, would it not be part of the responsibility and duty of the Supreme Court of India to examine through a Constitution Bench, the issue of divesting the Supreme Court of about 80% of the pendency of Full Judgment
EXTRA JUDL.EXEC.VICTIM FAMILIES ASSN&ANR Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ANR
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOCHI Vs. TRANS ASIAN SHIPPING SERVICES (P) LTD.
M/S UMESH GOEL Vs. HIMACHAL PRADESH COOPERATIVE GROUP HOUSING SOCIETY LTD.
TARA SINGH AND ORS Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. - NDPS
STAR SPORTS INDIA PVT LTD. Vs. PRASAR BHARTI & ORS.
MODERN DENTAL COLLEGE & RES.CEN. & ORS. Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.
R.B. Rai vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
27. Thus, taking overall view of the matter, the existing provision relating to reservation, backlog vacancies, carryforward of backlog vacancies and the operation of roster, contained in the Rules of 2002 runs contrary to the constitutional provisions contained in clause (4A) and (4B) of Article 16 and Article 335 of the Constitution and the law predicated in M. Nagaraj (supra), are declared ultra vires and non-est in law. 28. Consequently, various promotions of SCs/STs category made on the basis of these Full Judgment
VERHOEVEN, MARIE-EMMANUELLE Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
2. The principal question for consideration is whether there is a binding extradition treaty in terms of Section 2(d) of the Extradition Act, 1962 between India and Chile. Our answer to this question is in the affirmative. 3. The subsidiary question, equally important, is assuming there is no binding extradition treaty between India and Chile, whether Full Judgment