Trial judges discretion in granting injunction was found to be neither arbitrary nor capricious, adhering to established principles for interlocutory injunctions and therefore warrants upholding.
Denying the refund solely on grounds of limitation would be inequitable.
Defendant No. 2s right to reside in the shared household stemmed from her domestic relationship.
There is no possibility of settlement through mediation between the parties; therefore, request by Plaintiffs to refer matter to mediation is rejected.
Case does not warrant rejection at threshold according to established legal principles hence, interim applications for rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC are dismissed.
2008 Suit, based on allegations of impersonation, is ready for final hearing, while 2015 Suit, focusing on collusion, has yet to begin hence, prayer for consolidation of suit is rejected.
Petitioners lack right to join as parties since they have no privity of contract with landlords, which would complicate issue.
Petitioner is declared entitled to be considered for appointment to vacant aided post of Assistant Teacher for subject “Ardhamagadhi†in Respondent no.3 institution.
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.
Tap the button below to open the PDF in your device's default viewer