Compromise decree was set aside, with Court stating that partition suit should undergo full trial to appropriately adjudicate rights of all parties involved.
High Court erred in its interpretation of Section 7(5) of Act by rejecting existence of arbitration agreement between parties hence, impugned order set aside and Advocate of Bombay High Court is appointed as Sole Arbitrator to resolve disputes and differences between parties.
Respondent No. 1 is entitled to compensation of Rs.2,020 per square meter for 1,394 square meters, not Rs.3,588, and will receive all consequential benefits under 2013 LA Act, with already withdrawn amounts considered in final compensation disbursement.
Appellants have remained in service due to interim orders from High Court and have completed their probation, hence, Respondents/State directed to issue requisite appointment orders.
Appellants purchased land in 1984, but this purchase is subject to rights of occupants under Section 123 therefore, Appellants cannot claim relief as order under Section 143-C of Act does not challenge status of occupants who have transformed land for non-agricultural use.
Appellants services were terminated solely because institution was deemed unrecognized, leading to conclusion that their termination was illegal.
Services of Appellants are liable to be regularized as they are similarly situated as other daily-wage workers in Income Tax Department, whose services have been regularized pursuant to various orders passed by Court.
NGTs order to form Joint Expert Committee is stayed and no actions based on its December 2020 report will proceed until High Court resolves Writ Petition No. 6047 of 2025.
Vetting process must ensure all candidates are evaluated on equal footing, making it critical for applicants to disclose any criminal history and failure to disclose such information undermines selection process, even if law may not always view it as fatal to a candidates application.
Literal reading of Consent Award shows a clear, enforceable obligation for the Promoters hence, enforcement Petition is granted, requiring Promoters to pay or deposit Rs. 15,86,17,808/- within 30 days, with amount subject to outcome of ongoing proceedings involving EY and Promoters.
Srimati Radhika Sinha Institute and Sachchidanand Sinha Library (Requisition & Management) Act, 2015 is declared unconstitutional and is accordingly struck down.
State cannot create artificial classifications to deny statutory benefits, violating Articles 14 and 16 hence, judgments of High Court regarding exclusion of academic arrangement employees from regularization are set aside, declaring Section 3(b) unconstitutional.
Appellants based their title claim on long possession, introducing additional evidence at appellate stage lacks legal significance and does not rectify fundamental flaws in their case.
Seniority of direct recruits is established from their actual joining date, as mandated by relevant regulations hence, opinion expressed by Division Bench of High Court to extent that seniority will commence from date the candidate starts his probation is totally erroneous.
Single Judges acquittal based on doubt was upheld, but Division Bench of High Court controversially reversed this, intruding on committees discretion and undermining its assessment of Respondents suitability for police employment.
No allegations of mala fides against Assessment Committee members exist and they found respondent suitable for promotion hence, impugned judgment of High Court and CAT are set aside.
Amalgamation scheme by Reserve Bank of India does not qualify as statutory enactment to override this act hence Respondents is liable for eviction from premises as per Section 14(1)(b) of Act.
No established bar against adoption by uncle-in-law, requiring those who allege customs to prove their claims and Court found insufficient evidence to support alleged customs, reaffirming that in absence of a male heir directly related to landowner, nearest male agnate has rights to property.
Suits transformation into commercial suit under CCA was confirmed, with Court agreeing with High Courts conclusions regarding LMTs lack of justification for delays in filing new documents.
Inclusion of appellants name in Caution List is impermissible and without jurisdiction hence, there shall be consequential direction to respondents to remove name of appellant from Caution List with immediate effect.
Tap the button below to open the PDF in your device's default viewer