Digi - Legal Insights

No error in impugned judgment and decree passed by Principal District Judge modifying decree passed by Trial Court, setting aside relief of permanent injunction and dismissing suit in its entirety.

Nala/drain related to property was altered by petitioners, obstructing water flow, thus invalidating petitioners’ claims hence, actions taken comply with DM Act procedures.

Plaintiffs did not demonstrate readiness to perform their contractual obligations, as they delayed action from 1977 until suit was filed in 2010, indicating lack of urgency in fulfilling their part of agreement hence, Appellate court appropriately reversed Trial Courts findings based on these failures.

Respondents are duty-bound to honour their promise and to release pending subsidy claims of Petitioner.

There is no perversity or jurisdictional error therefore, in limited revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of CPC, it is not possible to re-appreciate evidence and come to contrary conclusion.

Impugned order passed by Respondent No. 2-Collector disqualifying Petitioners from posts of Sarpanch and Members of Gram Panchayat Kshetra Mahuli, is set aside.

It is imperative for authorities to implement Act effectively for its intended benefits to materialize therefore, directions are issued to ensure positive implementation of provisions of Act.

Tenant actively uses suit premises as godown, contradicting claims of non-use hence, impugned Judgment is set aside and Appeal filed by Tenant is dismissed, thereby confirming Judgment of eviction on grounds of bona-fide requirement and non-user.

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.

Compensation of Rs. 46,06,000 with 7% annual interest from claim application date was awarded to deceaseds mother, with specific provisions regarding interest adjustments excluded from reconsideration.

Granting and subsequently cancelling permission for an event on multiple occasions in March 2026 demonstrates authorities' illegal and mala fide actions, violating fundamental rights of attendees.

Refusal to approve appointment from its inception cannot be sustained and Education Officers order should be modified.

Charges, particularly for violation of Rule 146.4, stemmed from registered crime against Petitioner and none of his actions related directly to his official duties or obligations, with sufficient explanations for any non-disclosure of personal matters hence, impugned order set-aside and Respondents shall reinstate Petitioner on his original post.

Shalarth System was implemented by Government of Maharashtra to manage salary disbursement for private school employees hence, those employees, with appointments approved by Education Officer are eligible for Shalarth Identity.

Petitioner, moving from Laboratory Assistant to Shikshan Sevak, is entitled to regular pay scale for teaching position and prior approval for an honorarium must be corrected to reflect this entitlement.

Respondent authorities have not claimed any wrongdoing by Petitioners regarding conferral of these pay benefits hence, recovery made by Respondents from Petitioners is to be returned within 45 days of receiving order.

Authorities are criticized for hyper-technical approach that violates Article 14 of Constitution by failing to acknowledge contributions of deceased in Covid-19 care hence, Respondent no. 4 is required to process Petitioners proposal for benefits under ‘Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Package’ for deceased and grant compensation accordingly.

Need for correction is justified due to Petitioners service in C.R.P.F., where accurate records are necessary for pension benefits.

Refusal to approve Petitioners appointment based on Education Officers order from August 9, 2021, was found unsustainable, necessitating a modification of that approval order.

Bond is irrelevant to Petitioners entitlement to salary from appointment date until approval and there is no record of Petitioner executing such a bond thus, any restriction on salary payments based on this bond is unfounded.