High Court, sitting at principal seat, will not proceed to examine merits of petition hence, Office shall forthwith transmit writ petition, to Circuit Bench at Kolhapur for disposal in accordance with law.
Court would likely exercise discretion to prevent eviction without proper legal processes, allowing MCGM to seek possession through appropriate legal channels.
Impugned order did not reveal any errors justifying interference under Article 226 of Constitution; thus, deemed conveyance order is upheld as lawful.
CIDCOs statutory function and possibility of future transfer do not justify denial of legal and statutory rights during period it remained the employer in control.
If trial Court sends the recorded evidence and its findings to First Appellate Court, First Appellate Court should decide appeal expeditiously.
Election process must be undertaken by Respondent No. 1 within two months, even pending modification applications and Respondent No. 2 will evaluate any modification requests based on their merits.
Court criticizes a government resolution that restricts the timeline for submitting caste validity certificates for Scheduled Tribe candidates and such discrepancies violate the principle of equal benefits in reservation policy thus, denying admission based on technicalities is deemed unjust.
Petitioners true date of birth is 26.09.1972 and rejection of his request contradicts both regulatory mandates and established legal principles hence, impugned communications set aside directing Respondents to correct date of birth of Petitioner in service records.
Court cannot rewrite policy or compel MIDC to abandon transparent online system in favour of an ad hoc, offline seniority list which has no legal sanction.
Decision of Respondent No.4 rejecting Petitioners’ proposal for approval of a new D. Pharm course for academic year 2025-2026 is set aside and proposal of Petitioners shall stand remitted to Respondent No. 4 for fresh consideration.
Agreement between Model Mills and Union is not considered an industry-wide agreement under Industrial Law, as it solely pertains to that specific establishment and conditions of service have been altered by rules in accordance with Section 14 of Act.
Applicants failed to demonstrate an adequate justification for significant delay hence, Civil Application filed by Applicants seeking condonation of delay in filing Review Petition is devoid of any substance and same is liable to be rejected.
There was insufficient legal connection between parties involved, as Competent Authority issued a Corrigendum that exceeded its jurisdiction, influencing land title improperly hence, impugned order issuing Corrigendum must be quashed.
Petitioners’ claim faced significant delays spanning decades without satisfactory explanation hence, no relief can be granted to Petitioners under Article 226 of Constitution.
Courts jurisdiction is limited to address clear errors and not re-evaluating evidence hence, appeal Courts decision placing landlords needs above tenants was upheld as justifiable.
Petitioners application was not a genuine rectification application under Section 74 of Act but rather an attempt to reopen adjudicated issues through an improper forum hence, Joint Commissioner, CGST and Central Excise, has rightly observed that he is not able to rectify an order passed by Additional Commissioner.
Order passed by Respondent No.1-Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, which invalidated Petitioners claim to 'Halbi' Scheduled Tribe status, is deemed unsustainable and should be quashed.
Additional Commissioners order appeared justified and not arbitrary, supporting decision for disqualification under Section 39(1) of Act due to Petitioners complicity in her husbands actions.
Authority granted to deceased to occupy premises ceased upon his death and his heirs have not claimed tenancy rights thereafter and occupant cannot assert any rights under Will and provisions of Rent Act are inapplicable.
When Appeal Court, upon reviewing available evidence, has reached a probable finding in impugned Judgment, no interference is required in limited revisional jurisdiction of Court.
Tap the button below to open the PDF in your device's default viewer