Digi - Legal Insights

Both petitioner and respondent No.4 scored 41 marks in interview for an instructor post, granting management discretion to make appointment hence, no reasons to interfere with appointment of respondent No.4 as an instructor in respondent No.1s school.

Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are directed to give approval to selection of Petitioner to post of Professor in Computer Science and Engineering forthwith.

When mistake by Court is identified, Court is required to remedy situation by restoring affected party hence order of Trial Court should be quashed and Commercial Suit is restored to file of District Judge and this Suit be proceeded in accordance with law.

Incentive marks and all other benefits available to Petitioner as an in-service candidate serving in a hilly area made available in accordance with law.

Tahsildar improperly declared proceedings closed regarding disputed agricultural lands despite possession reports from Police and instead of determining entitlement and restrained Petitioners from disturbing Respondent No.3s possession, which exceeds jurisdiction granted under Section 145 of CrPC.

Impugned order of conviction and sentence held proper, as prosecution successfully demonstrated a chain of evidence and Sessions Judge properly evaluated evidence and dismissed testimony of dog handler, affirming that accused was last person with deceased.

Impugned order rejecting application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC does not suffer from any material irregularity, illegality or error apparent on face of record.

Petitioners were incorrectly promoted over Respondents Nos. 5 to 8, who are senior and eligible for posts of Naib Tahsildar despite petitioners having worked in these posts for over three years, hence, concerned competent Authority directed to appoint respondents Nos. 5 to 8 within two weeks, warning of potential contempt proceedings for noncompliance.

Respondent No. 4 is duty bound to pay compensation to Petitioner hence, Respondents are directed to acquire property of petitioner in accordance with law and initiate this process within period of four weeks.

Petitioner, a mother fully dependent on her deceased son, is entitled to family pension despite existence of three married sisters.

Trial Court has committed any error or illegality in rejecting both on maintainability as well as on limitations application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC.

Plaintiff has not demonstrated any ownership in property, failing to establish it as ancestral or Joint Hindu Undivided Family property therefore; First Appellate Courts decision is upheld.

No reason to interfere with impugned Judgment and Order of acquittal passed by Additional Sessions Judge, as suicide by deceased was established but there was insufficient evidence of cruelty or abetment by accused.

Evidence available does not support claim that officers acted within their official duties when inflicting harm hence, orders from lower courts remain valid and case for prosecution can proceed, barring any significant evidence to contrary from accused in future proceedings.

Detention order issued on 10.11.2025 lacked explanation for delays and Respondents failed to justify these delays in their affidavits, leading to conclusion that significant delays in handling case violate due process and necessitate allowance of petition, as it adversely affects personal liberty of petitioner.

Lack of subjective satisfaction from Detaining Authority on necessity for detention under M.P.D.A Act and absence of any indication of bail misuse post-release further underscore deficiencies in order, warranting setting aside of order of detention.

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.