Digi - Legal Insights

Petitioners challenges regarding dispossession related to another case (Regular Civil Suit No.95 of 2018) are not admissible in present suit, as they should be resolved within context of that suit hence, Trial Court rightly held that proposed amendments are not permissible in this case.

Respondent nos. 2 to 4 directed to acquire land admeasuring 26R in Survey No.50/01 belonging to petitioner by passing an award under Act and paying compensation to petitioner within three months.

Petitioner lost the confidence of majority of directors, indicating that no-confidence motion against him is valid and procedure followed in convening meeting for no-confidence motion is affirmed as legal and proper.

Appellate ruling was erroneous, especially considering that respondent had barred his elderly father from accessing his own property for an extended period and it was wrong to cancel financial aid and maintenance initially granted by first authority.

Respondent-Authorities are directed to regularize services of all petitioners on their respective posts with effect from their respective initial dates of joining in service, with consequential benefits.

Deductions made by Respondent No. 3 from death gratuity of deceased employee were justified due to a statutory undertaking given by employee, which acknowledged that any excess payments would be adjusted against future benefits.

In context of Review Applications, differing interpretations of legal clauses do not constitute an apparent error warranting review and merely presence of two possible interpretations does not justify a reassessment of earlier decisions.

Pay and recover principle, applies even for gratuitous passengers, as individuals involved were not fare-paying passengers.

Impugned communication issued by Respondent No.4, thereby reducing pay scale of Petitioners and initiating recovery of amount already paid to them is quashed and Respondent Nos.1 to 4 directed to give CAS benefits to services of Petitioners from date of their first appointments.

Reference Court determined compensation for acquired irrigated land at Rs.2,24,400 per acre hence, claimant cannot be denied this compensation simply because their claim was limited to Rs.2,00,000 per acre.

Impugned order is quashed and matter is remanded back to Respondent No. 2 Scrutiny Committee for fresh adjudication after considering independently documents on basis of which tribe validation certificate has been issued to petitioners sister and cousin.

Executing Court correctly concluded that it did not exceed its authority in rejecting execution petition, as limitation period of 12 years had lapsed without decree holder providing satisfactory evidence to justify delay.

Dismissal from service is justified, with no errors in law or procedure identified and Petitioners cannot claim their relationship is merely a live-in arrangement, as it is explicitly forbidden.

Petition is dismissed with costs and there is no valid reason for the order to be interfered with under Article 227 of Constitution.

Petitioner is reinstated without back wages, retaining continuity of service for benefits, although initial appointment date will be considered for pension calculations.

Given the time elapsed since incident and age of accused, court decided to release him on conditions, including maintaining peace and reporting to probation officer.

Demand-cum-Show Cause Notice issued on 19.12.2012 is barred by limitation as it was raised nearly two years after the relevant transaction.

Tribunal found the petitioners appointment to be incompetent and unlawful hence, it could not intervene under Article 227 of Constitution, asserting that it cannot condone illegal appointments.

Impugned order passed by respondent no.1, is quashed and Respondents are directed to place petitioner under category 3(b) of Guidelines issued under Government Resolution dated 15.03.2010.

FIR was filed as a counteraction to matrimonial disputes do not resolve issue hence, impugned FIR registered of alleged offences set aside.