Digi - Legal Insights

Prosecution failed to prove forgery of bills and that Respondent had committed any offenses under IPC and PC Act hence, impugned order of acquittal does not require to be interfered.

There does not appear to be any perversity or infirmity in bail order however, additional condition may be imposed that any infraction of any of conditions of bail imposed in said order shall entail cancellation of bail.

Impugned order and supplementary charge sheet were quashed because the State misinterpreted Section 173 (8) of CrPC, failing to obtain prior permission from Trial Court before conducting further investigation and filing supplementary charge sheet.

Motive, inferred from alleged quarrel over money for liquor, remains unproven through other evidence and prosecution did not meet burden of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt, resulting in Appellant's acquittal

Petitioner has failed to provide documentation establishing ownership of disputed property and has initiated civil suit seeking recognition of ownership via adverse possession, following rejection of his regularization application.

Impugned order 19.03.2024 has been reviewed, quashing January 20, 2024 order that allowed this impleadment therefore, Respondent No.14 is not recognized as party in Special Civil Suit No.8/2019 and any pleadings filed by them will be ignored as suit proceeds to final decree expeditiously.

No material evidence overlooked that could alter cases outcome and thus their findings were deemed reasonable and supported by record hence, second appeal was ultimately dismissed as it did not raise any substantial legal questions as defined under applicable law.

Petitioner did not comply with order, prompting Respondent No. 2 to issue execution directions and Respondent No. 2 acted in accordance with Act and issued memorandum requires no further interference.

Additional Sessions Judge adopted legally permissible view of material and correctly declined to set criminal law in motion hence, impugned Judgment and Order passed by Additional Sessions Judge, is confirmed.

It is established that Petitioners mother is an Indian citizen hence, orders issued by Respondent No.2 refusing passport services in favour of Petitioner are quashed and Authorities shall process Petitioners application for issuance of passport in light of observations made in this order.

Respondents No.3 counter-claim should have been appropriate remedy, rather than an application under Section 446 aimed at clerical corrections hence, inventory Courts order was deemed beyond its jurisdiction and was quashed.

Amendments to Section 52 do not exhibit arbitrariness as claimed and serve larger interest of spouses, respecting historical marital principles under Portuguese Civil Code.

Petitioner will have to be issued an appointment letter to post of Junior Engineer (Civil) by Public Works Department, effective from same date as other candidates in recruitment process, with all consequential benefits.

Petitioner is entitled to receive information free of charge hence, impugned order was quashed and PIO was mandated to furnish requested information within one week.

Service Law – Termination order set aside for breach of natural justice as petitioner was not informed of proposed punishment or given chance to respond.

Respondents have not substantiated any serious allegations against her that would justify an automatic blacklisting without a hearing hence, action taken is seen as arbitrary and unreasonable, violating principles of natural justice.

Provision of Section 30A was found to comply with Article 14, as it does not exhibit discriminatory practices and takes into account public health and safety in permitting process hence, legislative framework governing these lands was deemed constitutionally valid and reasonable.

Action of Respondent No.2 in issuing consolidated show cause notices for multiple assessment years is without jurisdiction and since it is a judicial overreach hence, set aside.

Suit should be decreed on admission without needing to address other applications hence; Trial Court is now directed to issue a decree against Defendant Nos. 1 to 2(c).

Denial of benefit under clause 2.12 of Regulation 2019 to Petitioner, who was appointed as Assistant Professor while regulation was in effect, is unjustified.