(1)
RAJA SINGH AND ANOTHER Vs.
STATE OF U.P AND ANOTHER .....Respondent D.D
06/05/2019
FACTS:Uttar Pradesh created the Minority Welfare Department in 1995.Appellants applied for the post of District Minority Welfare Officer in 1996 through deputation/transfer.Appellants were selected and appointed in 1997 for a temporary period of two years.UP Minority Welfare Department Gazetted Officers Service Rules 2001 came into force in 2001.Appellants sought absorption in the Minority Welfare...
(2)
PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LIMITED AND OTHERS ... Vs.
NIRVAL SINGH .....Respondent D.D
06/05/2019
FACTS:Nirval Singh, the respondent, sought compassionate appointment after the death of his father who was working with the appellants.The policy for compassionate appointment dated 21.11.2002 was in force when the application was submitted.The respondent did not receive compassionate appointment as the implementation of the policy was kept in abeyance for the consideration of a new policy.ISSUES:...
(3)
KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD Vs.
K. A. NAGAMANI .....Respondent D.D
06/05/2019
Facts:The Respondent applied for the allotment of a flat under the Self-Financing Housing Scheme.The Board allotted a flat, and after various proceedings, the matter reached the Supreme Court.The Supreme Court passed an order on 19.09.2012, conclusively determining the rights and obligations of the parties.Subsequently, the Respondent initiated execution proceedings to enforce the Supreme Court...
(4)
JITEN K. AJMERA AND ANOTHER Vs.
M/S TEJAS CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY .....Respondent D.D
06/05/2019
Facts: The Appellants sought permission under Order XLI Rule 27, CPC to introduce additional evidence before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The evidence, comprising two documents, came into existence after the filing of the appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission rejected the application, deeming the documents "not necessary." The matter reached the Na...
(5)
THE MAHARASHTRA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION THROUGH ITS SECRETARY Vs.
SANDEEP SHRIRAM WARADE AND OTHERS .....Respondent D.D
03/05/2019
Facts:Appellants challenged the High Court's orders allowing candidates with research and development experience in drugs to be considered for the post.Dispute arose over the interpretation of essential and desirable qualifications mentioned in the advertisements dated 04.01.2012 and 31.03.2015.Issues:Whether candidates with research and development experience can be considered eligible for t...
(6)
RAJASTHAN STATE ROADWAYS TRANSPORT CORPORATION .. Vs.
PARAMJEET SINGH .....Respondent D.D
03/05/2019
Facts: The respondent was appointed as a conductor on a contractual basis by the appellant. The contractual appointment allowed termination at any time without notice. The services were terminated on 21 March 2007. The respondent challenged the termination, citing a breach of natural justice.Issues:Whether the termination of the respondent's contractual appointment was in accordance with the ...
(7)
FEDERATION OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGICAL SOCIETIES OF INDIA (FOGSI) Vs.
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS .....Respondent D.D
03/05/2019
Facts: The petitioner, Federation of Obstetrics and Gynecological Societies of India (FOGSI), challenged the constitutional validity of Section 23(2) of the Act, contending that it presumes guilt before conviction and violates the fundamental right under Article 21. Additionally, the petitioner sought relief regarding paperwork anomalies, asserting violations of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 21.Issue...
(8)
GANESAN REP BY ITS POWER AGENT G. RUKMANI GANESAN Vs.
THE COMMISSIONER, THE TAMIL NADU HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS BOARD AND OTHERS .....Respondent D.D
03/05/2019
Facts: The appellant, Ganesan, was declared entitled to Ambalam right in his village by the Joint Commissioner of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Board. The third respondent filed an appeal under Section 69 of the Act, accompanied by a delay condonation application for a delay of 266 days. The Commissioner condoned the delay. The appellant challenged the order condoning the delay thro...
(9)
STATE OF GUJARAT Vs.
KALUSINH @ HARPALSINH .....Respondent D.D
02/05/2019
Facts: The case revolves around an incident on 23.11.1997, where accused persons, involved in a land dispute, allegedly fired shots at the complainant party during a confrontation, resulting in death and injuries.Issues:Identification discrepancies and contradictions in witness statements, along with doubts about the recovered weapons, raised questions about the prosecution's case. The High C...