Deceased was a bonafide passenger and accident was on account of an “untoward incident” hence, Original applicants are directed to lodge claim for receipt of compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from date of accident till date of realization, subject to a cap of Rs.8,00,000/-.
Impugned orders are well-reasoned and consider Petitioners' documents and arguments hence, unauthorized structures are deemed liable for demolition as illegality cannot be cured.
If Petitioner is in a position to demonstrate before Committee that Dattaguru is her blood brother, then obviously Committee is bound to issue a certificate of validity in her favour.
An Inspection Report validated existence of unauthorized structure, observable from public areas, leading to conclude that appellants did not meet necessary criteria for interim relief.
Interim Applications by third parties without contract privity with DA are dismissed without intervention in Section 9 Petition.
Petitioner is to be reinstated immediately, receiving all promotions and benefits due, with a mandate for Respondents to expedite her case within four months.
No case is made out for interference in concurrent findings recorded by Trial and Appellate Courts on issue of unlawful subletting.
There is consistent pattern of diligence by Petitioner and inaction by State, justifying delay as legally excludable therefore, registration period should be computed from date document became capable of registration and any delay in presentation is sufficiently explained.
Impugned letters, which rejected Petitioners appointment to post, are contrary to law and should be quashed.
Interim injunction granted in favour of Plaintiff against passing off, as Plaintiff has produced documentary material to prima facie establish use of registered mark OCTRIDE since year 1999.
Petitioner is entitled to compensation under provisions of Act of 2013 and respondents must complete acquisition process and disburse compensation within one year.
Charges against Petitioner were not sufficiently proven and ruled that previous penalties were excessive hence, impugned order passed by Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Order passed by Appellate Authority are quashed.
Trial judges discretion in granting injunction was found to be neither arbitrary nor capricious, adhering to established principles for interlocutory injunctions and therefore warrants upholding.
Denying the refund solely on grounds of limitation would be inequitable.
Defendant No. 2s right to reside in the shared household stemmed from her domestic relationship.
There is no possibility of settlement through mediation between the parties; therefore, request by Plaintiffs to refer matter to mediation is rejected.
Case does not warrant rejection at threshold according to established legal principles hence, interim applications for rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC are dismissed.
2008 Suit, based on allegations of impersonation, is ready for final hearing, while 2015 Suit, focusing on collusion, has yet to begin hence, prayer for consolidation of suit is rejected.
Petitioners lack right to join as parties since they have no privity of contract with landlords, which would complicate issue.
Petitioner is declared entitled to be considered for appointment to vacant aided post of Assistant Teacher for subject “Ardhamagadhi” in Respondent no.3 institution.
Tap the button below to open the PDF in your device's default viewer