Impugned order declaring Petitioner liable for reassessment concerning a property purchase of Rs. 83,87,386 was deemed outside jurisdiction and set aside.
State Election Commission (SEC) failed to engage in required consultation with Government regarding delimitation of Wards, leading to publication of an arbitrary notification dated 09.09.2026.
Victims testimony is credible and should be accepted, as circumstances raised do not justify dismissing her evidence hence, Trial Courts judgment is set aside and Respondent is convicted under several sections of Indian Penal Code and sentenced of ten years in rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,00,000.
Petitioners challenges regarding dispossession related to another case (Regular Civil Suit No.95 of 2018) are not admissible in present suit, as they should be resolved within context of that suit hence, Trial Court rightly held that proposed amendments are not permissible in this case.
Respondent nos. 2 to 4 directed to acquire land admeasuring 26R in Survey No.50/01 belonging to petitioner by passing an award under Act and paying compensation to petitioner within three months.
Complainant has not given any material to demonstrate actual payment of ₹ 17, 50, 000/- made to accused in any manner, even purpose of such payment is not specified hence, right of accused to cross-examination complainant and his witnesses cannot be curtailed.
Under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, prosecution is not permissible without an active predicate offence, which is rendered non-existent following a discharge or quashing of FIR, thereby restricting Enforcement Directorates jurisdiction.
Applicant, a foreign national with valid passport until 15.10.2028, is a first-time offender without prior criminal records, except for current conviction hence, impugned orders and judgment is suspended and Applicant, is directed to be released on bail, subject to specific conditions.
Petitioner lost the confidence of majority of directors, indicating that no-confidence motion against him is valid and procedure followed in convening meeting for no-confidence motion is affirmed as legal and proper.
Petitioner was not obligated to refund any excess payments, which dates back to 2005 and 2015 and requiring such a refund would cause undue hardship.
Petitioner wrongfully withdrew compensation without disclosing tenants rights hence, order requiring petitioner to refund amount did not modify original Award and found no grounds to interfere with order in its Writ jurisdiction.
Appellate ruling was erroneous, especially considering that respondent had barred his elderly father from accessing his own property for an extended period and it was wrong to cancel financial aid and maintenance initially granted by first authority.
Petitioner is permitted to seek second expert opinion from independent agency, such as Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL) on specific queries, which can be formulated by petitioner with help of expert of his choice.
Respondent-Authorities are directed to regularize services of all petitioners on their respective posts with effect from their respective initial dates of joining in service, with consequential benefits.
Decision to suspend Managing Director was made by a panel of Administrators, not the Board of Co-operative Societies, as it was based solely on directions from the Registrar of Co-operative Societies hence, it needs to be set aside.
Deductions made by Respondent No. 3 from death gratuity of deceased employee were justified due to a statutory undertaking given by employee, which acknowledged that any excess payments would be adjusted against future benefits.
Appellant has been rightly convicted by Sessions Court hence, impugned order of conviction of Appellant, uphold.
In context of Review Applications, differing interpretations of legal clauses do not constitute an apparent error warranting review and merely presence of two possible interpretations does not justify a reassessment of earlier decisions.
Grant of anticipatory bail is very extraordinary remedy and said power is not to be used in regular course hence, ad-interim protection granted to Applicant stands vacated forthwith.
Redevelopment by Respondent Nos. 5 to 7 obtained all necessary permissions without any evidence of false documentation hence, petition dismissed due to absence of merit, emphasizing need for transparency from State Authorities in their decision-making process.
You were logged out of this device because this account is also signed in on another device, and that device asked this one to sign out.
Tap the button below to open the PDF in your device's default viewer