REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

RAJKUMAR SAHU Appellant

V/S

STATE OF M.P. Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

D.K. TRIVEDI AND SONS V. STATE OF GUJARAT [REFERRED TO]
RAOJIBHAI JIVABHAI PATEL AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF GUJARAT AND OTHERS [REFERRED TO]
RAM KUMAR SAHU VS. STATE OF M.P. [REFERRED TO]
BISWANATH BHATTACHARYA VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [REFERRED TO]
TIKA RAMJI OTHERS VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
CHATURBHAI M PATEL VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS MADRAS NATHELLA SAMPATHU CHETTY PURAN SINGH KEWAL KRISHAN KRISHAN LAL ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR INDIA SONI NARANDAS NAGJIBHAI PUKHRAJ M S VENKITANARAYANA IYER VS. NATHELLA SAMPATHU CHETTY:THE COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS MADRAS:THE STATE OF PUNJAB:THE STATE OF PUNJAB:THE STATE OF PUNJAB:THE STATE OF PUNJAB:THE STATE OF PUNJAB:D R KOHLI:THE COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE MADRAS [REFERRED TO]
MANGALORE GANESH BEEDI WORKS M SARVETHAM KAMATH D C DIWAN MOHIDEEN AND SONS DHANUSHKODI VILAS CIGAR CO PATEL BROS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA UNION OF INDIA DAVINDRA TRADING CO VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF RAJASTHAN STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATE OF PUNJAB VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER VS. GV SUDHAKAR RAO [REFERRED TO]
D K TRIVEDI AND SONS AMBALAL MANIBHAI PATEL VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [REFERRED TO]
MAFATLAL INDUSTRIES LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF WEST BENGAL VS. GOPAL SARKAR [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF M P VS. S P SALES AGENCIES [REFERRED TO]
HARDEV MOTOR TRANSPORT VS. STATE OF M P [REFERRED TO]
KAILASH CHAND VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI VS. SANJAY [REFERRED TO]
SUPREME COURT ADVOCATE-ON-RECORD ASSOCIATION VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
YOGENDRA KUMAR JAISWAL AND ORS. VS. STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS VS. SMT. KALLO BAI [REFERRED TO]
RAMKUMAR SAHU VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & OTHERS [REFERRED TO]
NITESH RATHORE & ANOTHER VS. SHUBHAM SONI & ANOTHER [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been referred to a Larger Bench to reconsider the conclusions recorded by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Nitesh Rathore and another Vs. State of M.P. and others, 2018 (4) M.P.L.J. 193, in respect of Issue nos.5 and 6 framed and answered thereunder, which are as follows:-

(2.) Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the judgment in the case of Nitesh Rathore (supra), it is observed that several issues have been raised and are required to be considered by this Larger Bench for determining whether question nos.5 and 6 have been rightly decided or not by the Full Bench in the case of Nitesh Rathore (supra). The following questions/issues that arise are as under:-

(3.) Before we proceed any further to examine the interpretation of Rule 53 of the Rules of 1996, as made by the Full Bench in the case of Nitesh Rathore (supra), it is pertinent to note that the constitutional validity of Rule 53 of the Rules of 1996, as amended by notification dated 18.5.2017 has already been upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Kumar Sahu vs. State of M.P., 2018 (4) MPLJ 771.

Click here to view full judgment.

RAJKUMAR SAHU Vs. STATE OF M.P.

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address