VISHAL MISHRA
ABHIJEET SINGH BHADORIA – Appellant
Versus
BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. – Respondent
ORDER/JUDGMENT – Shri M.P.S. Raghuwanshi and Shri R.B.S. Tomar, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri K. N. Gupta, learned senior counsel with Shri R. S. Dhakad, Advocate for respondent.
With consent, heard finally.
The present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 16-4-2014 whereby, representation submitted in pursuance to the order dated 27-2-2013 passed in W. P. No. 6436/2012 has been rejected.
2. It is alleged by learned counsel for the petitioner that an advertisement was issued on 19-9-2011 for allotment of dealership of petrol pump at Distt. Sheopur. In pursuance to the aforesaid advertisement, four candidates have applied for dealership who were called for interview and thereafter, final list was prepared and petitioner was declared the most eligible candidates for allotment of dealership of petrol pump and letter of intent has been issued in favour of the petitioner on 28-2-2013, but subsequently, the same was withdrawn for the reasons that the petitioner has suppressed material information which was required to be supplied by him at the time of filing the form for dealership, an affidavit for required to be submitted by the petitioner to
Pawan Kumar vs. State of Haryana and anr.
Sushil Kumar Singhal vs. Regional Manager, Punjab National Bank
Devendra Kumar vs. State of Uttranchal and ors.
Avtar Singh vs. Union of India and ors.
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.
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.