Digi - Legal Insights

Petitioners’ claim faced significant delays spanning decades without satisfactory explanation hence, no relief can be granted to Petitioners under Article 226 of Constitution.

Petitioners application was not a genuine rectification application under Section 74 of Act but rather an attempt to reopen adjudicated issues through an improper forum hence, Joint Commissioner, CGST and Central Excise, has rightly observed that he is not able to rectify an order passed by Additional Commissioner.

Impugned order passed by Respondent No. 2 disqualifying Petitioner as elected member and Sarpanch of Village Panchayat is erroneous and is thus quashed and set aside.

Petitioner proved her caste claim as "Tokre Koli, Scheduled Tribe" using documentary evidence from pre and post-Independence eras, leading the Committee to issue her a validity certificate.

Insurance Company directed to pay enhanced compensation of Rs.88,000/- to parents along with interest @ 7.5% per annum.

There is no straitjacket formula for holding a persons notional income and it must be applied judiciously considering notifications from government authorities defining minimum wages.

State Government directed to notify lapsing of reservation by an order to be published in Official Gazette as per the requirement of Section 127(2) of Act.

Postponement orders issued by Commission in respect of concerned Nagar Panchayats and Nagar Parishads are not quashed but the Commissions conduct in issuing them at last minute is formally condemned as lacking in administrative foresight and constitutional responsibility.

If timely recruitment had occurred, Petitioners would have been included in seniority list and potentially absorbed and argument for age relaxation was deemed unfounded given their proactive legal pursuit.

Respondents are mandated to pay an enhanced compensation of Rs. 165 per sq.ft. along with 12% per annum from notification date until award date.

Petitioners' significant delay in seeking relief some since 1975 and resurfacing only in 2022-2023 renders their claims stale and non-viable under Article 226 of Constitution.

Executing court made a legal error by not establishing issues and allowing Appellant to present evidence that auctioned property is joint family property, purchased with joint family funds.

Order of Deputy Director of Land Records permitting correction is valid, as it pertains to clerical nature of issue and is referable to section 31A of Act.

In a case concerning appointment of teachers, Education Officer did not inform Management about number of surplus teachers available when filling the posts then, it was determined that Management had not erred in issuing an advertisement for appointments.

Impugned order lacked reasoning, which is crucial for fairness and judicial review and unreasoned order cannot uphold legal standards, justifying withdrawal based on unspecified complaints does not rectify original flaws in order.

Offering of a lower post instead of a clerk position contradicts guidelines, as does the managements reliance on past allegations and delays hence, Petitioner is entitled to clerk position, deeming managements rejection arbitrary and unsustainable.

If sale instance is of period of one year and more prior to acquisition of land, addition to consideration is required to be given.

Appellants are entitled to recover compensation of Rs. 2,90,400/- towards pecuniary loss from Respondents jointly and severally and order passed by Tribunal under other heads stands confirmed.

Respondent accepted quarterly installments for over two years and no specific repayment dates were established in agreement therefore, assertion for a lump sum collection is unsupported and charging interest is improper due to lack of specified due dates, indicating no breach by Petitioner.

Impugned order has been passed without jurisdiction hence, set aside directing Respondent to forthwith restore affiliation and recognition of Petitioner schools under Government Resolution.