Writ Petition claiming
de-recognition of Indian Economic Mission on disputed facts and without locus
standi or public interest is not maintainable.
Direction to restore
land to pond set aside where delay in filing petition and public interest in
existing park outweighed original use.
DRAT cannot lightly
remand matter to DRT when sufficient material exists to decide issues;
prolonged litigation warrants adjudication without remand.
In absence of proof of
actual damage due to land severance, claim for compensation is untenable and
arbitral award cannot be set aside.
Acceptance of
nomination of defaulter contrary to election law; writ under Article 226
maintainable to uphold fairness of electoral process.
Deregistration
under Section 21A cannot be initiated by flat purchasers; erroneous
registration must be challenged through appellate forum, not deregistration.
Conditional leave to
defend unjustified where triable issue is raised; direction to deposit money
set aside as onerous.
Rejection of plaint
under Order VII Rule 11 must be reasoned and cautious; non-consideration of
material averments renders order unsustainable.
Cancellation of NOC for
mobile tower installation without hearing and based on unsubstantiated
radiation fears is arbitrary and unsustainable.
Protective relief under
Section 9 cannot be used to evict statutorily protected tenants under guise of
redevelopment; no relief granted.
Petitioner was
appointed as legal guardian, being one of the legal heirs of her mother who
suffers from dementia and severe cognitive impairment and medical reports, show
no impediment for Petitioners to appoint Petitioner as legal guardian for her
mother.
Rejection of third
child adoption without considering special circumstances and power to relax
under Regulation 63 is arbitrary; matter remanded for reconsideration. 2024
DGLS(Del.) 269 dis.
Jama Masjid Trust is
not a private trust; falls within jurisdiction of Waqf Board and Waqf Tribunal
under Waqf Act.
FASTag policy imposing
double fee for non-compliance is rational and not arbitrary; no interference
warranted.
Respondents are not protected licensees and therefore, lawsuit filed in 1991 is within limitation period thus, appeal Courts assertion that suit was barred by limitation was incorrect.
Plaintiff-firm has failed to establish cause of action against Defendants for claiming title by adverse possession, leading to rejection of Interim Application.
Competent Authoritys impugned order set aside as it violated fundamental judicial principles by not providing an effective hearing opportunity for Petitioner and neglecting required inquiry as per Section 11(4) of MOFA.
Only because one Defendant signed written contract and given nature of property as ancestral joint family property, specific performance of contract could not be enforced against all Defendants.
Fraud
and impersonation in obtaining license vitiates order; constitutional powers
invoked to uphold rule of law.
Petition dismissed as
petitioner failed to come with clean hands and made unsupported allegations
about planning report.
Tap the button below to open the PDF in your device's default viewer