Judgments - Interpretation
STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. SANTOSH GUPTA AND ANR. ETC.
VIVEK NARAYAN SHARMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA
Whether the notification dated 8th November 2016 is ultra vires Section 26(2) and Sections 7,17,23,24,29 and 42 of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934; Does the notification contravene the provisions of Article 300(A) of the Constitution; Assuming that the notification has been validly issued under the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 whether it is ultra vires Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution; Whether the limit on withdrawal of Full Judgment
C.I.T & ANR Vs. M/S YOKOGAWA INDIA LTD.
MOHAMMED ZUBAIR CORPORAL NO.781467-G Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
JUSTICE (RETD.) MARKANDEY KATJU Vs. THE LOK SABHA & ANR.
THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP. BY SEC.&ORS Vs. K. BALU & ANR.
NATIONAL CAMPAIGN ON D.H. RIGHTS & ORS. Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
J.ASHOKA Vs. UNIV.OF AGR.SC.& ORS.
KARMA DORJEE & ORS Vs. U.O.I & ORS
HDFC SECURITIES LTD.& ORS. Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR
However, it appears to us that this order under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. requiring investigation by the police, cannot be said to have caused an injury of irreparable nature which, at this stage, requires quashing of the investigation. We must keep in our mind that the stage of cognizance would arise only after the investigation report is filed before the Magistrate. Full Judgment
REENA BANERJEE & ANR. Vs. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.
STATE OF U.P. AND ORS Vs. SUBHASH CHANDRA JAISWAL AND ORS
AMARSANG NATHAJI AS HIMSELF AND AS KARTA AND MANAGER Vs. HARDIK HARSHADBHAI PATEL AND ORS
The mere fact that a person has made a contradictory statement in a judicial proceeding is not by itself always sufficient to justify a prosecution under Sections 199 and 200 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) (hereinafter referred to as “the IPC”); but it must be shown that the defendant has intentionally given a false statement Full Judgment
GOLLA RAJANNA ETC. ETC. Vs. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER AND ANR ETC ETC.
The Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner, having regard to the evidence, had returned a finding on the nature of injury and the percentage of disability. It is purely a question of fact. There is no case for the insurance company that the finding is based on no evidence at all or that it is perverse. Under Section 4(1)(c)(ii) of the Act, Full Judgment