Digi - Legal Insights

Trial Court erred by allowing Respondent no.2 to participate in heirship certificate proceedings, as he is not a family member of Applicants and cannot substantiate claim for rights over property in question.

Despite objections regarding the timing and prior decisions favoring the Respondents, allowing amendment is necessary to resolve dispute and prevent litigation proliferation.

No grounds for attributing fraud to Petitioners due to their failure to complete MH-CIT course on time, leading to conclusion that Respondent Authorities must refund recovered amounts to Petitioners within 90 days.

After excluding 28 days for obtaining certified copy, appeal remains 8 days late, indicating a clear error in Appellate Courts jurisdiction in condoning delay in filing appeal.

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.

Unexplained delay between Detaining Authoritys receipt of representation and subsequent comments sent to State Government violates constitutional mandate outlined in Article 22 (5) of Constitution, thereby invalidating detention order.

Impugned detention orders are quashed, as detention order, based on Petitioners criminal history to prevent actions prejudicial to public order, was ultimately flawed due to lack of verification of truthfulness of statements.