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.
Court reinforced necessity of upholding integrity of Civil Courts decree concerning this land, despite withdrawal of prior petitions, maintaining that proceedings under Section 54 of Code should not delay execution of partition decree for Survey No.80/3.
Courts power to order inspections is acknowledged, yet there appears to be no valid reason for such action in this instance, given context of expedited timetable set by Division Bench.
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.
If there is no adjudication on caste claim of Petitioner during his service tenure, it cannot withhold pension of employee-petitioner.
There has been no resolution passed by Respondents to create a permanent post hence, Petitioners are not entitled to permanent employment relief.
Services of Respondent-employee are terminated by way of compulsory retirement after holding enquiry against him hence, Respondent No.1 is not entitled to receive gratuity.
Impugned judgment is modified to extend that Respondent nos.1 and 2-claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.6,92,000/- instead of Rs.5 lakh for acquisition of land, with all statutory benefits.
If timely recruitment had occurred, Petitioners would have been included in seniority list and potentially absorbed and argument for age relaxation was deemed unfounded given their proactive legal pursuit.
Respondents are mandated to pay an enhanced compensation of Rs. 165 per sq.ft. along with 12% per annum from notification date until award date.
Petitioners' significant delay in seeking relief some since 1975 and resurfacing only in 2022-2023 renders their claims stale and non-viable under Article 226 of Constitution.
Executing court made a legal error by not establishing issues and allowing Appellant to present evidence that auctioned property is joint family property, purchased with joint family funds.
Order of Deputy Director of Land Records permitting correction is valid, as it pertains to clerical nature of issue and is referable to section 31A of Act.
In a case concerning appointment of teachers, Education Officer did not inform Management about number of surplus teachers available when filling the posts then, it was determined that Management had not erred in issuing an advertisement for appointments.
Tap the button below to open the PDF in your device's default viewer