There has been no resolution passed by Respondents to create a permanent post hence, Petitioners are not entitled to permanent employment relief.
Services of Respondent-employee are terminated by way of compulsory retirement after holding enquiry against him hence, Respondent No.1 is not entitled to receive gratuity.
Impugned judgment is modified to extend that Respondent nos.1 and 2-claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.6,92,000/- instead of Rs.5 lakh for acquisition of land, with all statutory benefits.
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.
2024 Amendment Rules do not include savings clause for pending proceedings following the omission of certain Rules under CGST Act hence, all pending proceedings related to omitted Rules, including show cause notices, will lapse.
Employees’ contribution to funds, if paid before due date of filing of return of income, would be allowed as a deduction.
Section 34 Court maintains that an arbitral award should not be challenged if it yields a plausible outcome and reasons for it can be inferred.
Court does not have jurisdiction in matter and these petitions cannot be entertained hence, all captioned Petitions and attendant Interim Applications are dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
Section 85(2)(a) of 1996 Act indicates that 1940 Act does not apply to proceedings initiated after January 25, 1996, date the 1996 Act came into effect.
If Arbitrators findings, based on hearsay rather than concrete evidence, are flawed and award is deemed shocking to Courts conscience then it must be set aside under Section 34(2)(b)(ii) of Act.
Appellants holding various agreements cannot make independent claims against Society or its affiliates once prior developers rights have been lawfully terminated under Development Agreement.
Circular from an administrative department does not constitute law simply because it was issued by a government officer.
Evidence presented by Plaintiff was inadequate to prove joint cultivation of property by sisters hence, decisions made by Trial Court and first Appellate Court were quashed, leading to dismissal of Regular Civil Suit.
Defendant, significantly contributing to flats purchase and loan repayment, was true owner hence, Appellate Courts findings regarding Defendants acquisition of flat were deemed credible and did not require revision.
Death occurred while on duty is incorrect, as there is no proven connection between death and employment under Section 3 of Act therefore, findings are set aside and claim is dismissed.
Tap the button below to open the PDF in your device's default viewer