Party cannot challenge an order after delay of over eight years without sufficient cause thus; delay in filing appeal is not condoned.
It is established that Petitioners mother is an Indian citizen hence, orders issued by Respondent No.2 refusing passport services in favour of Petitioner are quashed and Authorities shall process Petitioners application for issuance of passport in light of observations made in this order.
Tribunal overstepped its mandate by altering its own framework and discriminated between parties, leading to decision to set aside entire Arbitral Award hence, impugned Judgment is upheld.
Respondents No.3 counter-claim should have been appropriate remedy, rather than an application under Section 446 aimed at clerical corrections hence, inventory Courts order was deemed beyond its jurisdiction and was quashed.
Petitioners are unfairly affected by prior disputes involving Wellbuild hence, Respondent Nos.01 to 04 directed to issue completion/Occupancy Certificate in respect of Tower on application/proposal in that regard made by Petitioner in accordance with law.
Suit is not barred by limitation, as defendants did not properly establish their period of possession of contested land.
As Society withdrew its amendment request for conveyance, leading to conclusion that both Courts improperly granted declarations in favor of society, as primary suit was solely for declaration of title, not for specific performance and findings of both courts were deemed erroneous and invalid.
Impugned Order is quashed and suit is directed to be returned to Respondent no.1, with refund of Court fees in accordance with rules and disputes between parties will be referred to arbitration, with provisions for appointing an arbitrator if necessary.
Termination of Petitioners services as a Junior Engineer due to absence of a caste validity certificate is deemed unsustainable and will be quashed directing Caste Scrutiny Committee is directed to decide caste claim of petitioner as expeditiously as possible within period of two month.
Committee failed to consider pre-independence documents that support petitioners claims and did not adequately evaluate evidence he provided hence, Committees order is deemed erroneous, leading to its quashing.
Respondents are entitled to monthly interest due to delays in possession delivery, as per Section 18(1), confirmed by Supreme Court.
It is imperative for authorities to implement Act effectively for its intended benefits to materialize therefore, directions are issued to ensure positive implementation of provisions of Act.
Arbitral Tribunals decision to not stay Bhutan Contract is justified, as granting such an injunction could cause grave harm.
Competent Authority focused on actual dispute and no material evidence was presented to show any alteration due to misjoinder therefore, objection based on misjoinder was merely technical and insufficient to challenge authoritys substantive decision.
Petitioner has established that he belongs to ‘Halbi' Scheduled Tribe. Respondent No.2- Scrutiny Committee is directed to issue caste validity certificate to Petitioner as he belongs to 'Halbi' Scheduled Tribe within a period of two weeks.
Expulsion based on fee non-payment is unsustainable since petitioners expressed willingness to pay, indicating expulsion is unlawful and should be quashed.
Tenant actively uses suit premises as godown, contradicting claims of non-use hence, impugned Judgment is set aside and Appeal filed by Tenant is dismissed, thereby confirming Judgment of eviction on grounds of bona-fide requirement and non-user.
Tribunals previous order remains relevant as it reflects evolving conduct of parties over four years and allowing disposals of key assets could jeopardize arbitrations outcome hence, tribunal is positioned to determine appropriate interim measures and assess litigation costs incurred throughout process for fairness in proceedings.
Acquired lands value should account for developmental costs, leading to calculated compensation adjustment for claimants hence, impugned judgment and award is partly set aside and modified.
Judicial review of disciplinary actions is limited and unless punishment shocks conscience, it is upheld thus, given proven charges against Petitioner, dismissal imposed is deemed appropriate and justified.
Tap the button below to open the PDF in your device's default viewer