Impugned order quashed and remanded for Minister to reevaluate and provide concrete findings on alleged misappropriation of food grains by Respondent No. 3/DSO.
Petitioners' claim for larger commercial structures is unfounded, as they do not own land and have exceeded originally allotted space.
Lack of seriousness from Petitioners in contesting suit, which has been ongoing since 2018 and reasons insufficient to condone delay hence, order rejecting Petitioners' application to file written statement, proper.
Matter, concerning a residential flat, does not support Respondents claims based on previous judgments hence; Respondent is directed to hand over possession of suit flat to Petitioner.
Rejection of Plaint based on Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC is deemed inappropriate, as case seeks to protect deceaseds estate and must continue alongside probate proceedings.
No evidence showed that employees of other CPSEs perform similar work, hold similar qualifications or discharge similar responsibilities hence, decision by MOIL to maintain distinct pay structure is justified for administrative efficiency.
Respondents-employees have proved before Industrial Court that they have completed 240 days of continuous service in one calendar year therefore, Industrial Court has rightly granted permanency in their favour.
Lack of a properly marked 'Domicile Certificate' should not disqualify a candidate whose entire record is from Maharashtra.
Voluntary retirement, while considered premature, does not deprive an employee of their pension benefits.
No writ of mandamus can be issued to compel authorities to treat Petitioner as eligible in contravention of governing statute.
Legal heirs are entitled to Rs. 5,00,000 in cases of death or permanent disability without any additional considerations hence, amended Section 164 of Act is applicable retroactively, allowing for this entitlement.
To claim protection under Section 15A of Act, Defendant must prove existence of a subsisting license agreement, as Defendants Nos. 4, 4A, and 5 failed to provide evidence of such an agreement, therefore they are not entitled to protection under Act.
Although Sale-deed was executed on 11/07/2007, sale transaction remains incomplete without registration, making document not valid title evidence.
Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 directed to propose pension calculations that incorporate 50% of Petitioners Part-Time service, under old pension scheme.
Caveator, an unrelated third party, has made a significant effort to usurp deceaseds estate, warranting the dismissal of his Caveat.
After over four decades of enjoying these properties, daughter of deceased attempt to be added as a Decree Holder cannot be permitted, as rights to property in question belong to branch of her uncle.
Estate officers quantification of damages is upheld due to lack of contrary evidence from Respondent, rendering appellate Courts reversal of estate officers decision improper.
Suit, filed on December 18, 2021, is within limitation period under Article 113 of Limitation Act, 1963, as cause of action arose on May 21, 2019 hence, no grounds for rejecting plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC at this stage.
As Plaintiff lacks shareholder or director status in related entities, operations of Defendant companies remain unchallenged and unaffected, he is not entitled to any interim reliefs.
When litigant attempts to mislead Court through suppressed facts or false statements, Court will refuse relief and decline jurisdiction, ending case without further inquiry into merits.
Tap the button below to open the PDF in your device's default viewer