Digi - Legal Insights

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.

Impugned order passed by Respondent No. 2 disqualifying Petitioner as elected member and Sarpanch of Village Panchayat is erroneous and is thus quashed and set aside.

Competent Authority of SRA is directed to finalize Annexure- II in respect of slum scheme in respect of land.

Defendants Interim Application No.3243 of 2025 is successful, concluding that Suit ought to have been filed only after obtaining permission of Charity Commissioner under Sections 50 and 51 of Act.

Eviction order contradicts Acts intent and lacks consideration of harassment or neglect, leading to conclusion that both eviction and appellate orders are unsustainable.

Petitioner proved her caste claim as "Tokre Koli, Scheduled Tribe" using documentary evidence from pre and post-Independence eras, leading the Committee to issue her a validity certificate.

Petitioners lacked compelling evidence to counter societys legal documents, which reconsidered balance of equities against their appeal for interim relief hence, Appellate Court did not commit any legally noticeable error in setting aside Trial Courts interim order.

Once Petitioner failed to make required deposit within 120 days, he forfeited right to appeal and this deposit must occur at time of appeal presentation and cannot be deferred until Appellate Authority decides on any application for delay condonation.

Labour Court neglected established legal principles and natural justice, resulting in a denial of representation that could lead to a miscarriage of justice hence, impugned order is set aside.

Appellate Court acted correctly by granting protective relief and stopping weakened committee from taking important decisions and its order is consistent with purpose of law and with the facts admitted by both sides.

There is no reason to entertain application for impleadment of Respondent no.2 in execution of award initiated by Petitioner against Respondent no.1 for recovery of dues.

Postponement orders issued by Commission in respect of concerned Nagar Panchayats and Nagar Parishads are not quashed but the Commissions conduct in issuing them at last minute is formally condemned as lacking in administrative foresight and constitutional responsibility.

Respondents have not substantiated any serious allegations against her that would justify an automatic blacklisting without a hearing hence, action taken is seen as arbitrary and unreasonable, violating principles of natural justice.

Suit should be decreed on admission without needing to address other applications hence; Trial Court is now directed to issue a decree against Defendant Nos. 1 to 2(c).

Courts power to order inspections is acknowledged, yet there appears to be no valid reason for such action in this instance, given context of expedited timetable set by Division Bench.

Trial Court erred by allowing Respondent no.2 to participate in heirship certificate proceedings, as he is not a family member of Applicants and cannot substantiate claim for rights over property in question.

Despite objections regarding the timing and prior decisions favoring the Respondents, allowing amendment is necessary to resolve dispute and prevent litigation proliferation.

If there is no adjudication on caste claim of Petitioner during his service tenure, it cannot withhold pension of employee-petitioner.

Order of Deputy Director of Land Records permitting correction is valid, as it pertains to clerical nature of issue and is referable to section 31A of Act.