Parties have freedom to negotiate new terms or adhere to previous conditions during renewal hence, argument that perpetual lease can only be treated as rent renewal agreement is rejected.
Claim that Sarpanch or Upa-Sarpanch must be provided with requisition for motion was rejected, as Upa-Sarpanch had participated in meeting and had ample opportunity to address the grounds discussed.
If Plaintiff cannot recover decretal claim from a vessel for supplied services and holds a decree against the vessels owner, they can claim against proceeds from other vessels in the owners fleet.
Judgment and decree passed by Lower Appellate stands confirmed with modification that Plaintiff shall deposit amount of purchase price prescribed in decree with simple interest at rate of 6% p.a.
Petitioner possessed necessary educational qualifications and caste validity certificate for Scheduled Tribe category hence, termination of Petitioner is illegal and he is entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service and consequential benefits.
Defendant has no basis for compensation claim under Section 64 of Act, as he effectively relinquished his status as licensee during proceedings without citing other legal grounds for such a claim hence, impugned order needs to be upheld.
Plaintiff has made out a case under Order VII, Rule 11 (d) of CPC and plaint is liable to be rejected for having barred by Section 163 as also by Section 164 of Act.
Impugned judgments and decrees would not require any interference, as both Courts have rightly held that suit for possession filed on 29th June 1987 based on title is well within limitation.
Information requested pertains to third-party GST returns, which cannot be released as they are protected under Section 158 of GST Act.
Denial of cross-examination did not significantly prejudice the Petitioner and lack of an oral hearing did not violate their right to fair opportunity to respond to findings however, case did not warrant exercising writ jurisdiction, especially given available statutory remedy of appeal.
Writ against show cause
notice not maintainable when alternative remedy is available and no violation
of natural justice is shown.
Show-cause notice based
on forensic audit can be withdrawn and reissued; original notice and
consequential proceedings stand cancelled.
Writ petition under
Article 226 maintainable despite alternative remedy when only legal issue is
involved and compensation is statutory.
Petition
under Article 226 not maintainable for declaratory relief when possession and
use of property discontinued and material evidence lacking.
Inordinate delay of
over four decades in asserting land allotment claim amounts to abuse of legal
process; no vested right established.
No locus standi to
challenge MHADAs e-tender when petitioner lacks registered agreement and
enforceable rights under Article 226.
No legal bar on use of
additional languages like Urdu on municipal signboards alongside Marathi;
language use cannot be restricted solely on religious or political grounds.
Sale in breach of
exemption conditions under Section 20(1)(b) is illegal; no writ interference
warranted despite mistaken reference to Section 5(3).
Termination without
inquiry, notice or compensation for employees working on clear vacant posts
amounts to unfair labour practice; reinstatement upheld in revisional
jurisdiction under Sec. 44.
Deliberate disregard of
Court orders and perpetuation of illegality amounts to contempt; demolition
ordered and simple imprisonment imposed.
Tap the button below to open the PDF in your device's default viewer