Need for correction is justified due to Petitioners service in C.R.P.F., where accurate records are necessary for pension benefits.
Validity of Petitioners application cannot be dismissed in light of a subsequent proposal from promoter claiming majority support, especially since that claim is disputed with allegations of misrepresentation.
Sons have established a case warranting intervention to quash Impugned Order due to jurisdictional fact against Father, which remains unchallenged.
Petitioner is entitled to receive information free of charge hence, impugned order was quashed and PIO was mandated to furnish requested information within one week.
Refusal to approve Petitioners appointment based on Education Officers order from August 9, 2021, was found unsustainable, necessitating a modification of that approval order.
Time bound promotion Scheme aims to alleviate employee stagnation by offering higher pay-scale without actual promotion, exemplified by Petitioners receiving a higher pay-scale upon absorption as CEA.
Executing Court was criticized for not providing detailed reasons for its decisions and application of Order 21 Rule 99 of CPC by Respondents was deemed an abuse of legal process hence, substantial questions of law posed were found in favor of Appellants, making impugned order unsustainable.
Court rejected continuation of interim relief but mandated that authorities must comply with statutory requirements during possession proceedings.
Regulation 6(g) of Regulations aims to ensure that medical colleges remain accessible and do not become monopolized by wealth, a goal consistent with N.M.C. Acts objectives hence, Regulation 6(g) is deemed valid and no declaration of its invalidity or any consequential relief can be granted.
Tribunals assertion that Petitioner should have obtained certificate by application date was deemed erroneous hence, MPSC is instructed to conduct an interview with Petitioner, facilitating her participation in selection process.
Application filed by Petitioners in 2005 under Section 84 of Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act was deemed inadmissible since original tenant's heirs did not pursue recovery of possession.
Petitioner Janhavi, who is daughter of present Petitioner, has filed an additional affidavit confirming their relationship during pendency of SLP hence, Respondent-Scrutiny Committee is directed to issue validity certificate to Petitioner as belonging to Hindu Thakar Scheduled Tribe.
Regulatory measures that influence market conditions do not justify invalidating legislation under constitutional grounds, as amendments comply with statutory frameworks and do not impose taxes or extraneous premiums.
Appellants action of storing does not constitute a "manufacturing process" as defined by Section 2(k) of Factories Act, 1948.
Bond is irrelevant to Petitioners entitlement to salary from appointment date until approval and there is no record of Petitioner executing such a bond thus, any restriction on salary payments based on this bond is unfounded.
Trial Courts mistake in allowing impleadment of Petitioners in a suit regarding TDR is highlighted, asserting that Plaintiffs cannot entangle unrelated properties in their claims hence, Courts order must be modified to remove impleadment of Petitioners from suit.
Education Officers inaction cannot invalidate appointment without demonstrating any fraudulent activity hence, Petitioners case was upheld, leading to quashing of impugned order.
Impugned order passed by Respondent No.4 quashed and Education Officer shall grant approval to Petitioner No.1 on posts of Junior Clerk in regular pay scale with effect from date of their appointments and shall release salary grants accordingly.
Preliminary objection is upheld and petition is not entertained due to availability of an effective alternative remedy under Act.
Allegations of fraud and unilateral contract cancellation support validity of plaint, rejecting outright dismissal under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC hence, Trial Courts decision appears reasonable and well-founded based on plaint and applicable legal standards, showing no grounds for calling order into question.
Tap the button below to open the PDF in your device's default viewer