AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
Maa Vaishno Enterprises – Appellant
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
ORDER :
1. This order shall dispose of a bunch of 37 writ petitions preferred by the petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India bearing W.P. Nos. 7373, 7389, 7472, 7473, 7474, 7490, 7520, 7567, 7576, 7577, 7578, 7738, 7764, 7767, 7771, 7804, 7805, 7808, 7810, 7811, 7812, 7815, 7867, 7918, 8016, 8084, 8131, 8137, 8139, 8153, 8159, 8160, 8259, 8260, 8363, 8365 and 8575 of 2020, as learned counsel for the parties are agreed that common questions of fact and law are involved therein. However, the facts are being extracted from W.P. No. 7373/2020 wherein the auction process conducted by the respondents for grant of licence for the retail liquor shops has been called in question by the petitioners and further directions have been sought against the respondents to revalue the same; restrain them to issue licences to the petitioners, refund the money deposited by the petitioners and further to set aside the offers made by the petitioners and acceptance thereof by the respondents-State. In W.P. Nos. 7520, 7567, 7576, 7578, 8259 and 8260 of 2020, the petitioners, in additi
Ajodhya Prasad Shaw vs. State of Orissa
Alopi Parshad and Sons Ltd. vs. Union of India
Anwar Hasan Khan vs. Mohammad Shafi and Others
Air India Limited vs. Cochin International Airport Ltd. (2000) 2 SCC 617
ABL International Ltd. and Others vs. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. and Others
Bihar Eastern Gangetic Fishermen Co-operative Society Ltd. vs. Sipahi Singh and Others
B.K. Srinivasan vs. State of Karnataka
CCE vs. Dunlop India Ltd. (1985) 1 SCC 260
DDA vs. Kenneth Builders and Developers (P) Ltd. (2016) 13 SCC 561
Delhi Development Authority vs. Joint Action Committee
Fertilizer Corporation Kamgar Union vs. Union of India
Ghaziabad Development Authority vs. Union of India
Har Shankar vs. The Dy. Excise and Taxation Commissioner
Joshi Technologies International Inc. vs. Union of India
Khoday Distilleries Ltd. and Others vs. State of Karnataka and Others
Krishna Kumar Narula vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir
K.P. Chowdhary vs. State of M.P. AIR 1967 SC 203
Monarch Infrastructure (P) Ltd. vs. Commissioner, Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation and Others
Mulamchand vs. State of M.P. AIR 1968 SC 1218
Mulamchand vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
M/s Shree Krishna Gyanoday Sugar Ltd. vs. State of Bihar
Mohd. Fida Karim and Another vs. State of Bihar and Others
Mohan Kumar Singhania and Others vs. Union of India and Others
Nashirwar and Others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others
Nanhibai vs. Excise Commissioner
Naihati Jute Mills Ltd. vs. Khyaliram Jagannath
P.N. Kaushal and Others vs. Union of India and Others
Ramana Dayaram Shetty vs. International Airport Authority
Raunaq International Ltd. vs. I.V.R. Construction Ltd. (1999) 1 SCC 492
Ramniklal N. Bhutta vs. State of Maharashtra
Ram Ratan Gupta vs. State of M.P. AIR 1974 MP 101
State of Kerala vs. Kandath Distilleries
Seth Bikhraj Jaipuria vs. Union of India
Satyabrata Ghose v. Mugneeram Bangur and Co. AIR 1954 SC 44
State of Punjab vs. Dial Chand Gian Chand and Co. (1983) 2 SCC 503
State of M.P. vs. Firm Gobardhan Dass Kailash Nath
State of Haryana and Others vs. Lal Chand and Others
State of A.P. and Others vs. McDowell & Co. and Others
Smt. Sushila Devi and Another vs. Hari Singh and Others
State of Bihar vs. M/s. Karam Chand Thapar and Brothers Ltd. (1962) 1 SCR 827
Syed Israr Masood, Forest Contractor
Timber Kashmir Pvt. Ltd. vs. Conservator of Forests, Jammu
Tata Cellular vs. Union of India
Union of India vs. A.L. Rallia Ram
U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Ltd. vs. Indure Pvt. Ltd. and Others
Union of India and Others vs. Dinesh Engineering Corporation
Villianur Iyarkkai Padukappu Maiyam vs. Union of India and Others
Vithal Dattatraya Kulkarni and Others vs. Shamrao Tukaram Power SMT and Others
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.