Appellants are entitled to recover compensation of Rs. 2,90,400/- towards pecuniary loss from Respondents jointly and severally and order passed by Tribunal under other heads stands confirmed.
Legal heirs of deceased, particularly of tribal community, are entitled for equal share in suit property.
Respondent accepted quarterly installments for over two years and no specific repayment dates were established in agreement therefore, assertion for a lump sum collection is unsupported and charging interest is improper due to lack of specified due dates, indicating no breach by Petitioner.
Impugned order has been passed without jurisdiction hence, set aside directing Respondent to forthwith restore affiliation and recognition of Petitioner schools under Government Resolution.
As Trial Court neglected to determine issue which is crucial and restricts sale of agricultural land to non-agriculturists, but does provide exceptions, justifying remand of matter to trial court.
After excluding 28 days for obtaining certified copy, appeal remains 8 days late, indicating a clear error in Appellate Courts jurisdiction in condoning delay in filing appeal.
Tahsildar acted beyond legal authority when entertaining an application and his actions were based on an unfounded claim of fraud related to a certificate issued in 1960, making his jurisdictional exercise invalid.
Conditions imposed for granting leave should be reasonable and not create undue financial burdens, especially when a valid defense is raised.
Parties have freedom to negotiate new terms or adhere to previous conditions during renewal hence, argument that perpetual lease can only be treated as rent renewal agreement is rejected.
Claim that Sarpanch or Upa-Sarpanch must be provided with requisition for motion was rejected, as Upa-Sarpanch had participated in meeting and had ample opportunity to address the grounds discussed.
If Plaintiff cannot recover decretal claim from a vessel for supplied services and holds a decree against the vessels owner, they can claim against proceeds from other vessels in the owners fleet.
Judgment and decree passed by Lower Appellate stands confirmed with modification that Plaintiff shall deposit amount of purchase price prescribed in decree with simple interest at rate of 6% p.a.
Petitioner possessed necessary educational qualifications and caste validity certificate for Scheduled Tribe category hence, termination of Petitioner is illegal and he is entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service and consequential benefits.
Defendant has no basis for compensation claim under Section 64 of Act, as he effectively relinquished his status as licensee during proceedings without citing other legal grounds for such a claim hence, impugned order needs to be upheld.
Plaintiff has made out a case under Order VII, Rule 11 (d) of CPC and plaint is liable to be rejected for having barred by Section 163 as also by Section 164 of Act.
Impugned judgments and decrees would not require any interference, as both Courts have rightly held that suit for possession filed on 29th June 1987 based on title is well within limitation.
Information requested pertains to third-party GST returns, which cannot be released as they are protected under Section 158 of GST Act.
Denial of cross-examination did not significantly prejudice the Petitioner and lack of an oral hearing did not violate their right to fair opportunity to respond to findings however, case did not warrant exercising writ jurisdiction, especially given available statutory remedy of appeal.
Writ against show cause
notice not maintainable when alternative remedy is available and no violation
of natural justice is shown.
Show-cause notice based
on forensic audit can be withdrawn and reissued; original notice and
consequential proceedings stand cancelled.
Tap the button below to open the PDF in your device's default viewer