Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The old pension rules do not apply to those appointed on or after 01-04-2003.
Calcutta High Court emphasised on the importance of considering representations submitted by individuals, especially in cases involving allegations against authority figures within educational institutions.
“The Chief Justice does not have the power, under Article 229, to make rules pertaining to the post-retiral benefits payable to former Chief Justices and Judges of the High Court”.
“This Court is saddened to see such a sorry state of affairs, where members of the petitioner Society, being persons with disabilities and, over and above everything else, being citizens of this Country having an order in their favour passed by a Statutory Authority in 2019, are being compelled to move pillar to post seeking implementation of their rights.”
Kerala High Court held that once loan is repaid, the bank is not entitled to withhold the title deed merely on the grounds that the petitioner has transferred the property during the subsistence of mortgage.
The Uttaranchal High Court held that participation in the elections of college union was an integral part of the education, and it was an opportunity that was given to the students for developing their leadership qualities, therefore, two years age relaxation was granted to the student for participating in his college elections.
Kerala High Court: The Division Bench comprising of A. Muhamed Mustaque and Kauser Edappagath, JJ., addressed the issue relating to controversial regulations
Kerala High Court: A Division Bench of S. Manikumar and Shaji P. Chaly, JJ., while deciding the Constitutional validity of the Kerala
Jammu and Kashmir High Court: Ali Mohammad Magrey, J. allowed the writ petition and directed the respondents to indemnify the petitioner. The
Allahabad High Court: Dr Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, J., addressed a matter with regard to stamp duty. Respondents invited a tender to repair
Kerala High Court: T.V. Anilkumar, J. dismissed the writ petition with all interlocutory applications declared closed. In the present case, the petitioner
Supreme Court: The bench of Indira Banjerjee and Indu Malhotra, JJ that the Courts are duty bound to issue a writ of
Madras High Court: A Division Bench of P.N. Prakash and B. Pugalendhi, JJ., addressed a petition wherein writ of mandamus was sought to
Delhi High Court: A Division Bench of D.N. Patel, CJ and C. Hari Shankar, J. dismissed a writ petition that sought modification
Karnataka High Court: A Division Bench of Abhay S. Oka, CJ and B.V. Nagarathna, J. dismissed a petition on the ground that
Bombay High Court: A Division Bench of S.J. Kathawalla and R.I. Chagla, JJ., issued a writ of mandamus directing respondents to issue a
Uttaranchal High Court: Alok Kumar Verma, J., allowed a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the impugned
Chhattisgarh High Court: Goutam Bhaduri, J., while dismissing the present petition held that, Legislature has before it a full panoply of legislative powers
Allahabad High Court: Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J. while issuing the writ of mandamus commanded the opposite parties to reinstate the petitioner and
Allahabad High Court: A Division Bench of Pankaj Naqvi and Suresh Kumar Gupta, JJ., while disposing of this petition directed the complainant