Appellants/Claimants are held entitled to Rs. 40,58,300/- from Respondent No.1/Insurance Company, with interest @ 9% p.a. from date of claim application till realization, as per specific calculation.
NHAIs repeated inability to submit affidavit evidence on time, ultimately determining that Arbitrators award of compensation based on 22 sale deeds was justified and did not exhibit patent illegality.
Appellant has failed to show sufficient cause for gross inordinate delay in not filing appeal challenging exparte Judgment to trial Court thus, no error in judgment passed by lower Court.
In interest of justice and equity, Petitioners should be allowed to present their case for enhancement, ensuring that minor delay does not undermine their substantial rights, while also safeguarding States financial interests.
Petitioner is declared entitled to be considered for appointment to vacant aided post of Assistant Teacher for subject “Ardhamagadhi” in Respondent no.3 institution.
Petitioners, having purchased property from tenant, were required to obtain prior permission from Collector as per Section 43 of Act.
Petitioners should be allowed to present their case based on merits, as minor delay should not impede their substantive rights, while still safeguarding states interests in public finances.
Respondent No.1s appointments were strictly temporary for academic years 2001–2002 and 2002–2003, negating any claims of deemed probation or promotion.
Respondent-Zilla Parishad is directed to include name of Petitioner in list of persons to be appointed on compassionate ground, if he is otherwise eligible.
District Court rightly set aside arbitrators award under Section 34 of Act, allowing parties to agree on new arbitrator or seek court intervention for appointment hence, no reason to interfere with the same.
Advertisement did not authorize authorities to apply weightage to exam scores that could disadvantage some candidates hence, Petitioners selected and appointment orders issued to them in terms of advertisement as they have secured total marks more than Respondents.
Petitioner is deemed to hold sufficient documentation proving her residency in village Padoshi hence, Respondents authorities shall appoint Petitioner on subject matter post of Anganwadi Madatnis.
Cancellation of admission was deemed lawful and not arbitrary, affirming that right to education does not permit repeated claims under welfare quota after prior benefits have been received.
Compensation of Rs. 46,06,000 with 7% annual interest from claim application date was awarded to deceaseds mother, with specific provisions regarding interest adjustments excluded from reconsideration.
Granting and subsequently cancelling permission for an event on multiple occasions in March 2026 demonstrates authorities' illegal and mala fide actions, violating fundamental rights of attendees.
Petitioners failed to establish significant case for an unconditional stay of awards execution, as they have not shown substantial loss nor provided adequate security for awards performance therefore, District Judges decision to conditionally stay awards execution was deemed appropriate.
AHAD Board does not meet criteria to be considered a necessary or proper party under CPC hence, Trial Courts order was not erroneous and there is no basis for this Court to intervene under Article 227 of Constitution.
Writ petition was dismissed for lack of merit and Review Petition did not reveal any significant errors warranting interference.
Respondents did not demonstrate that Petitioners were aware of this panchnama and Revisional Authority merely restated Tahsildars conclusions without addressing specific issues, leading to rejection of Revision Application being similarly unsustainable.
Transfer of land by Collector, Pune, for a public housing project aimed at economically weaker sections is deemed lawful and serves a public purpose, with no identified illegality in Collectors actions.
Tap the button below to open the PDF in your device's default viewer