Digi - Legal Insights

If timely recruitment had occurred, Petitioners would have been included in seniority list and potentially absorbed and argument for age relaxation was deemed unfounded given their proactive legal pursuit.

Respondents are mandated to pay an enhanced compensation of Rs. 165 per sq.ft. along with 12% per annum from notification date until award date.

Petitioners' significant delay in seeking relief some since 1975 and resurfacing only in 2022-2023 renders their claims stale and non-viable under Article 226 of Constitution.

Executing court made a legal error by not establishing issues and allowing Appellant to present evidence that auctioned property is joint family property, purchased with joint family funds.

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.

In a case concerning appointment of teachers, Education Officer did not inform Management about number of surplus teachers available when filling the posts then, it was determined that Management had not erred in issuing an advertisement for appointments.

Impugned order lacked reasoning, which is crucial for fairness and judicial review and unreasoned order cannot uphold legal standards, justifying withdrawal based on unspecified complaints does not rectify original flaws in order.

Offering of a lower post instead of a clerk position contradicts guidelines, as does the managements reliance on past allegations and delays hence, Petitioner is entitled to clerk position, deeming managements rejection arbitrary and unsustainable.

If sale instance is of period of one year and more prior to acquisition of land, addition to consideration is required to be given.

Appellants are entitled to recover compensation of Rs. 2,90,400/- towards pecuniary loss from Respondents jointly and severally and order passed by Tribunal under other heads stands confirmed.

Respondent accepted quarterly installments for over two years and no specific repayment dates were established in agreement therefore, assertion for a lump sum collection is unsupported and charging interest is improper due to lack of specified due dates, indicating no breach by Petitioner.

Impugned order has been passed without jurisdiction hence, set aside directing Respondent to forthwith restore affiliation and recognition of Petitioner schools under Government Resolution.

Tahsildar acted beyond legal authority when entertaining an application and his actions were based on an unfounded claim of fraud related to a certificate issued in 1960, making his jurisdictional exercise invalid.

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.

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.

Information requested pertains to third-party GST returns, which cannot be released as they are protected under Section 158 of GST Act.

Unauthorized shops constructed on open layout space cannot be regularized; delay in demolition despite court orders undermines rule of law.

Review not maintainable where Supreme Court has declared predecessors transactions void and barred further challenge.

Plaint filed without a genuine cause of action, lacking relevancy for suit and barred by limitation is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11.

Omission of material facts and absence of specific pleadings of corrupt practice in election petition justify its rejection under O. VII R. 11 CPC and Ss. 83 & 87 of the Representation of the People Act.