Digi - Legal Insights

A Single Judges order in civil contempt rejecting a compliance affidavit on merits is appealable via an intra-court Special Appeal.

A third-party claim in execution cannot be dismissed merely for quoting a wrong CPC provision without inquiring into title.

State Election Commission (SEC) failed to engage in required consultation with Government regarding delimitation of Wards, leading to publication of an arbitrary notification dated 09.09.2026.

Petitioners challenges regarding dispossession related to another case (Regular Civil Suit No.95 of 2018) are not admissible in present suit, as they should be resolved within context of that suit hence, Trial Court rightly held that proposed amendments are not permissible in this case.

Petitioner lost the confidence of majority of directors, indicating that no-confidence motion against him is valid and procedure followed in convening meeting for no-confidence motion is affirmed as legal and proper.

Appellate ruling was erroneous, especially considering that respondent had barred his elderly father from accessing his own property for an extended period and it was wrong to cancel financial aid and maintenance initially granted by first authority.

Rigid adherence to requirement of producing an original document, given impossibility of such compliance, should not be upheld hence, impugned order set aside and contract awarded to appellant.

Proposed amendment overlaps significantly with original suit, warranting its consideration despite objections of limitation and procedural rules hence, application for amendment is allowed, subject to payment of costs.

Although petitioner references CCTV footage as proof of his involvement, it only verifies his presence and does not confirm the actual presentation of petition hence, view taken by High Court upheld.

A candidate who knowingly participates in a selection process without protest cannot turn around and challenge the validity of the rules after failing to qualify.

A recovery certificate issued by a DRT prior to the 2016 amendment of the RDB Act does not constitute a decree or order capable of sustaining an insolvency notice.

A writ of certiorari under Article 226 is strictly supervisory, not appellate, and no adverse orders can be passed without observing the audi alteram partem principle.

Doctrine of promissory estoppel cannot be invoked to compel the State to grant a benefit contrary to the policys true intent.

A successful resolution applicant is bound by the plan approved by the Committee of Creditors.

In context of Review Applications, differing interpretations of legal clauses do not constitute an apparent error warranting review and merely presence of two possible interpretations does not justify a reassessment of earlier decisions.

Impugned order is upheld with modification allowing appellant to raise a counterclaim solely for set-off purposes.

In response to constitutional obligation to protect health rights and address need for effective pharmaceutical marketing regulation, Court has issued directions under Articles 32 and 142 of Constitution and Union of India is required to establish Committee within two weeks to comprehensively examine unethical pharmaceutical marketing practices and adequacy of existing regulations.

Interpreting dies as died would conflict with statutes language and Appellants citations are deemed irrelevant and court affirmed correctness of judgment under Section 51(2)(a)(ii) of Act and its relationship with Section 14 of HSA, 1956.

Law states a joint committee is only required when both motions are admitted, which was not the case therefore, formation of committee by Speaker was legally valid.

High Courts order confirming penalty is set aside, along with Order-in-Original and proceedings against appellant will be revived and decided afresh by an officer of same rank, excluding the one who issued order on October 8, 2025.