Chhattisgarh High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

As per Annual Confidential Reports, the petitioner’s overall grade was average or below average. Since, the petitioner completed 50 years of age, this decision of compulsory retirement could have been taken by the State authorities. The un-communicated adverse remarks cannot be made a basis to disturb the finding recorded by the competent authority.

Allahabad High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

“Whenever even a very small part of an area, reserved for a public purpose, is used for other public purpose, the Gram Sabha concerned, and officials of State will take endeavour to make out a larger consensus amongst the villagers so that they may not approach this Court to oppose the public cause”

Karnataka High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

While considering a matter revolving around dismissal of a Banker due to indiscriminate lending of money to fictitious persons, the Court stated, “Funds are parked with the banks by broad segments of the public and this establishes a public trust which compels the banker to act with a greater care than what individuals engaged in commerce ordinarily do.”

Allahabad High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

“The commission formed under Article 340 of the Constitution which was headed by G. Rohini, former Chief Justice of Delhi High Court, to examine the issue of sub-categorization of Other Backward Classes. It proposed a four-category formula for the equitable redistribution of the 27% quota for Other Backward Classes.”

delhi high court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

“The policy decision of the Government is aimed to enhance functional autonomy, efficiency and unleash new growth potential and innovation in Ordnance Factories. The re-structuring is aimed at transforming the Ordnance Factories into productive and profitable assets, deepen specialization in product range, enhance competitiveness, improving quality and cost efficiency.”

delhi high court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Bayer healthcare LLC was selling its product of Rs. 36,995 by importing the same into India, whereas the Natco Pharma Ltd. was manufacturing the product in India and selling the same of Rs. 9,900. The injunction was refused due to the huge disparity between the prices offered by both, for a life threatening disease.