(1)
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS ........ Vs.
SHRI RAM SINGH ........Respondent D.D
01/02/2000
Facts:Allegations of corruption against public servants in Madhya Pradesh.Investigations initiated under Section 13(1)(e) and Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.High Court quashed investigations citing non-compliance with Section 17 of the Act.Issues:Validity of investigations under the Prevention of Corruption Act.Interpretation and application of Section 17 of the Act.Held:C...
(2)
UNION OF INDIA ........ Vs.
E.I.D. PARRY (INDIA) LTD. ........Respondent D.D
01/02/2000
Facts:Respondent sued for the recovery of excess demurrage charged by the Railway.Trial Court decreed in favor of the respondent.First additional district judge set aside the decree.High Court declared a Goods Tariff Rule as ultra vires the Railways Act, 1890.Issues:Absence of pleading on the validity of the Goods Tariff Rule.High Court's jurisdiction to decide the vires of the rule not plead...
(3)
AIR INDIA LTD. Vs.
COCHIN INT., AIRPORT LTD. AND OTHERS ........Respondent D.D
31/01/2000
Facts:Cochin International Airport Ltd. (CIAL) invited offers from various companies for ground handling services at the new Cochin Airport.Several companies, including Air India and Cambatta Aviation Ltd., submitted proposals.A committee evaluated the offers and recommended Cambatta for the contract.However, CIAL decided to have a detailed discussion with Air India before making a final decision....
(4)
CHAIRMAN, J AND K STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION Vs.
FEYAZ AHMED MALIK AND OTHERS ........Respondent D.D
28/01/2000
Facts:The Board introduced amendments to its regulations, specifically Regulations 66(a) and 66(b), to address mass copying in examinations.The Chairman of the Board canceled an entire examination session in 1993 due to mass copying and violations of the examination's integrity.Candidates who took the exams challenged this decision in the High Court, which allowed the cases and issued directi...
(5)
THE CHAIRMAN, RAILWAY BOARD AND OTHERS Vs.
MRS. CHANDRIMA DAS AND OTHERS ........Respondent D.D
28/01/2000
Facts: In this case, a foreign national (H), a Bangladeshi citizen, was gang-raped by multiple individuals, including railway employees, at a railway station and a rented flat. A petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution by a practicing advocate on behalf of the victim, seeking compensation and other reliefs.Issues: Whether compensation could be awarded in a writ petition under Arti...
(6)
GANGULA ASHOK AND ANOTHER Vs.
STATE OF A.P ........Respondent D.D
28/01/2000
Facts:The first appellant is a practicing advocate, and the second appellant is his wife, who worked as the Matron of a Girls' Hostel run by the Social Welfare Department.A complaint was filed by Kumari G. Swetha, a resident of the hostel, alleging that the first appellant had attempted to outrage her modesty on a specific date.The police filed a charge-sheet directly before the Sessions Cour...
(7)
G. SAGAR SURI AND ANOTHER Vs.
STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS ........Respondent D.D
28/01/2000
Facts:In this case, the accused obtained a loan from the complainant company. They issued two cheques for the repayment of the loan, but these cheques were returned dishonored. Subsequently, the accused requested more time for repayment, issued two more cheques, which were also dishonored. The complainant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the accused. La...
(8)
MOOL CHAND Vs.
KEDAR (DECEASED) BY LRS. AND OTHERS ........Respondent D.D
28/01/2000
Facts:The case involves the inheritance of Bhumidhari land by Smt. Kaushalya Devi, a female Hindu landholder who inherited the property from her father. After her marriage, she became the wife of the appellant, Mool Chand. Smt. Kaushalya Devi passed away in 1953, leading to a legal dispute regarding the devolution of her property. The central question was whether her property would be governed by ...
(9)
THE NEDUNGADI BANK LTD. Vs.
K.P. MADHAVANKUTTY AND OTHERS ........Respondent D.D
28/01/2000
Facts:K.P. Madhavankutty, an employee of The Nedungadi Bank Ltd., was dismissed from service in 1972 due to allegations of misappropriation of funds and falsifying bank records.Madhavankutty admitted his guilt during disciplinary proceedings and appealed to the Bank's Board of Directors for leniency. His appeal was dismissed in 1973.In 1980, Madhavankutty claimed discrimination, arguing that ...