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.
Unilateral appointment of an arbitrator before 23 October 2015, as long as arbitration clause allows for named arbitrator or permits appointment by one party, remains valid.
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.
In cases where no stay or prohibitory order has been issued by any Civil Court, claims for compensation and Rehabilitation and Resettlement (R&R) benefits, including employment, will be processed after eligible landowners provide an undertaking and indemnity bond.
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.
Clauses 4(I)(c) and (e) that exclude married daughters as dependents, except in specific cases, are considered unconstitutional and will be nullified hence, Respondent is directed to suitably amend Guidelines of 2019 and impugned order issued by respondent is quashed and set aside.
50% of service rendered as Part Time Librarian is liable to be reckoned for purpose of computing qualifying service for pension, along with entire service rendered as a full time employee hence, impugned order passed by respondent no.2, denying benefit of Old Pension Scheme to petitioner is quashed and set aside.
Petitioner cannot simultaneously contest acquisitions jurisdiction while having actively participated in related proceedings and his challenge to lack basis and considers it an afterthought, leading to its rejection.
Although appellant was granted interim anticipatory bail on 07/01/2025, new substantial evidence has emerged regarding incident, prompting the court to consider vacating interim order hence, impugned order passed by Special Judge is confirmed.
Impugned communications/orders issued by respondent No.3 are quashed and Respondents are directed to fix and pay petitioners pension on basis of his last drawn pay for post of Draftsman and to release all consequential retiral benefits in his favour within period of three months.
Recovery of excess salary payments to petitioner due to improper pay fixation and promotional orders, it is determined that such recovery is not permissible.
Impugned judgment passed by Additional Sessions Judge is quashed and modified, convicting appellant under Section 304 Part II of IPC and sentencing him to time already served and conviction under Section 30 of Arms Act, 1959 is upheld.
Prosecution failed to establish common intention of accused Nos. 2 and 3 however, evidence against accused No. 1, who is linked to death of deceased, is consistent and corroborated hence, appeal is partially allowed, affirming prosecutions case against accused No. 1 while exonerating accused Nos. 2 and 3.
FIR registered against Applicant does not meet necessary criteria under Section 32 of Act and is therefore unsustainable.
Petitioner, despite being acquitted in three cases, faces serious pending trial and evidence supports that subjective satisfaction as required under Section 55 has been adequately recorded based on gangs activities hence, no interference in impugned orders is warranted.
Appellant has been in custody since 18/04/2026, that investigation has been completed and charge-sheet has already been filed hence, impugned order set aside and ail granted to Appellant.
As Cheque, issued after cancellation of deal, does not reflect such an obligation since transaction was terminated before any statutory notice or complaint was filed hence, cheque does not signify legally enforceable debt.
Case establishes that victim, a child allegedly sexually assaulted by her father, faced significant trauma and violation of her rights hence, no reason to interfere with judgment impugned in Appeal even on point of quantum of sentence.
No blanket order will prevent further FIRs against Petitioner pending independent transactions and Court has not reviewed case on merits, leaving investigation conclusion and legal determinations to relevant jurisdictional Court.
Petitioners were not heard by Special Court prior to taking cognizance hence, Special Court is directed to afford Petitioners an opportunity of hearing from stage of taking cognizance.
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