Digi - Legal Insights
CIVIL LAW
Details
Petitioners lacked compelling evidence to counter societys legal documents, which reconsidered balance of equities against their appeal for interim relief hence, Appellate Court did not commit any legally noticeable error in setting aside Trial Courts interim order.
CIVIL LAW
Details
Once Petitioner failed to make required deposit within 120 days, he forfeited right to appeal and this deposit must occur at time of appeal presentation and cannot be deferred until Appellate Authority decides on any application for delay condonation.
CIVIL LAW
Details
Labour Court neglected established legal principles and natural justice, resulting in a denial of representation that could lead to a miscarriage of justice hence, impugned order is set aside.
SERVICE LAW
Details
Petitioner company did not take necessary steps to terminate services of 13 workmen nor conduct an inquiry, hence, they are entitled to monetary compensation of Rs. 7,50,000 each.
CIVIL LAW
Details
Appellate Court acted correctly by granting protective relief and stopping weakened committee from taking important decisions and its order is consistent with purpose of law and with the facts admitted by both sides.
CIVIL LAW
Details
There is no reason to entertain application for impleadment of Respondent no.2 in execution of award initiated by Petitioner against Respondent no.1 for recovery of dues.
PROPERTY LAW
Details
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.
SERVICE LAW
Details
Grievance redressal mechanism is deemed adequate for current Petitioners’ complaints and committees are expected to operate effectively, taking judicial precedents into account.
CIVIL LAW
Details
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.
CIVIL LAW
Details
Respondents have not substantiated any serious allegations against her that would justify an automatic blacklisting without a hearing hence, action taken is seen as arbitrary and unreasonable, violating principles of natural justice.
PROPERTY LAW
Details
Provision of Section 30A was found to comply with Article 14, as it does not exhibit discriminatory practices and takes into account public health and safety in permitting process hence, legislative framework governing these lands was deemed constitutionally valid and reasonable.
TAXATION
Details
Action of Respondent No.2 in issuing consolidated show cause notices for multiple assessment years is without jurisdiction and since it is a judicial overreach hence, set aside.
CIVIL LAW
Details
Suit should be decreed on admission without needing to address other applications hence; Trial Court is now directed to issue a decree against Defendant Nos. 1 to 2(c).
SERVICE LAW
Details
Denial of benefit under clause 2.12 of Regulation 2019 to Petitioner, who was appointed as Assistant Professor while regulation was in effect, is unjustified.
PROPERTY LAW
Details
Court reinforced necessity of upholding integrity of Civil Courts decree concerning this land, despite withdrawal of prior petitions, maintaining that proceedings under Section 54 of Code should not delay execution of partition decree for Survey No.80/3.
CIVIL LAW
Details
Courts power to order inspections is acknowledged, yet there appears to be no valid reason for such action in this instance, given context of expedited timetable set by Division Bench.
CIVIL LAW
Details
Trial Court erred by allowing Respondent no.2 to participate in heirship certificate proceedings, as he is not a family member of Applicants and cannot substantiate claim for rights over property in question.
CIVIL LAW
Details
Despite objections regarding the timing and prior decisions favoring the Respondents, allowing amendment is necessary to resolve dispute and prevent litigation proliferation.
SERVICE LAW
Details
No grounds for attributing fraud to Petitioners due to their failure to complete MH-CIT course on time, leading to conclusion that Respondent Authorities must refund recovered amounts to Petitioners within 90 days.
CIVIL LAW
Details
If there is no adjudication on caste claim of Petitioner during his service tenure, it cannot withhold pension of employee-petitioner.