Test formulated for review under O.47r. 1..
Intention and Recklessness – Distinguished..
Further investigation after the final report possible..
Retirement of an employee is no bar to hold enquiry..
Powers of Appellate Courts..
Powers of Appellate Courts..
The respondent no.1 has agreed to pay Rupees six lakhs in full and final settlement of the claims of the appellant. The amount would include the claim of gratuity. The appellant has agreed to accept Rupees six lakhs in full and final settlement of hi..
In this Interlocutory Application, notice was issued by this Court and Mr.Subhash Chandra Das, Principal Secretary to the Government of Assam, Dispur, Guwahati, Assam has filed a comprehensive affidavit on behalf of respondent no.2 in which it is men..
VINOD KUMAR @ BITTU VERSUS STATE OF DELHI..
This appeal is preferred by the State of Andhra Pradesh against the judgment and order dated 27.01.2006 passed by the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Criminal Petition No. 4362 of 2002 whereby the High Court allowed the petit..
This is an appeal for enhancement of compensation, by the mother, widow, three children and father of Kuldeep Sharma, a Sub-Inspector of Police, aged 36 years, who died in a motor accident on 25.12.1990. According to the salary certificate, his basic..
This appeal, by special leave, filed by the State of Maharashtra and its functionaries, arises out of the judgment dated 26th April, 2007 delivered by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No.1721 of 2004. By the impugned judgment, ..
A show cause notice, dated 20th August 1999, was issued to the assessee, alleging therein that MODVAT credit availed of on steel plates and M.S. channels used in the fabrication of chimney, was inadmissible as the subject items were not “capital good..
This appeal, by special leave, at the instance of the Revenueis directed against the judgment and order dated 27th June, 2001 delivered by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Income Tax Reference No.44 of 1986. By the impugned judgment, the Hig..
Challenge in this appeal, filed under Section 23 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”), by the Maharashtra State Financial Corporation (hereinafter referred to as “the Corporation”), is to the final order, dated 7th January, 2002..
. In all, eight persons, namely, Rajeshwar Singh @ Kamta Singh, Nagina Singh, Sheo Jee Singh @ Akshay Singh, Awadhesh Singh, Sikandar Singh, Harendra Singh, Shankar Singh @ Sheo Shankar Singh and Besh Lal Singh @ Bansh Lal Singh were put on trial for..
In Central Bureau of Investigation vs. K.M.Sharma, Criminal Appeal No. 351 of 2008, the Supreme Court set aside the Delhi High Court’s order quashing the proceedings under section 120B AND 193 IPC against the respondent...
Member Strength 9,48,971 and growing..
© 2024 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
