Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
Court reiterated out that availability of an alternative remedy, would not be an embargo on the High Court’s power to entertain the petition under Article 226 in certain contingencies.
‘The Adjudicating Authority alone has the jurisdiction to regulate the conduct of CoC and finally adjudicate upon the resolution plan through powers of judicial review while ensuring that CoC functions as per the role and responsibilities delineated under IBC.’
“OMR answer sheets are electronically evaluated for the purpose of ensuring minimum human intervention, so as to ensure secrecy and credibility of the entire examination process.”
The Court opined that the proper venue for addressing a breach, such as the one in the present matter, would be the civil courts where contractual disputes are adjudicated.
The Court held that a writ petition against a show-cause notice is generally not maintainable, as established in Union of India v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana, (2006) 12 SCC 28.
Out of the 43 Audit Objections, 23 Audit Objections have already been dropped after getting satisfactory clarification/reply from the authority concerned and the rest are soon to be dealt with.
For the Municipal Corporation, providing adequate place for burial of the dead is their statutory duty and obligation, thus, the authorities cannot shirk their shoulders away from such statutory responsibility.
On the demand of around Rs. 44 Crores, only Rs. 9 Crores was provided to Assam State Legal Services Authority by the Finance Department and the Law Department of the State, for providing compensation to the victims.
Remanding the consumer dispute back to the District Consumer Commission, the Court relied on MP State Agro Industries Development Corp. Ltd v. Jahan Khan, wherein it was observed that a Court may not entertain a writ petition due to availability of an alternative remedy, but the said rule cannot be said to be of universal application.
The Court opined that both the contract teachers and the guest teachers are discharging same duties as they are teaching students in schools and thus, there is no difference between the contract teachers and the guest teachers.
The petitioners submitted that the film “Hamare Baarah” portrays lives of married Muslim women to have no independent rights as individuals in society owing to “Aayat 223”, a verse in the Quran which in his view is entirely wrong and a misreading of the verse.
“A quasi-judicial authority is limited in its functionality in as much as it has to act within the four corners of the statute from which it derives its authority. If the statute does not provide for a particular act, the same cannot be undertaken by that authority.”
The Delhi High Court noted that there was a delay in forwarding the punishment inquiry to the Inspecting Judge, which contravened Rule 1273 of the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018.
The Bombay High Court held that leave encashment is akin to a salary, which is a property, and depriving a person of his property without any valid statutory provision would violate Article 300-A of the Constitution.
Delhi High Court stated that since the legislature in its wisdom has elected to impose this duty on the manufacturer and the pharmacist, we do not find any ground for issuing a direction as prayed for in this PIL as it would amount to judicial legislation.
The old pension rules do not apply to those appointed on or after 01-04-2003.
The Court held that railway platforms exist mainly for travelling passengers and their free movement; their safety being paramount compared to the business interest of the petitioner in operating the catering stall.
Madras High Court said that the election process has concluded, and the polling has already taken place. Thus, it asserts that such grounds cannot be deemed acceptable for not permitting the temple festival.
“Arulmigu Gangaikonda Cholisvarar temple is a protected monument under the Archaeological Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1958.”
The High Court found the cause of action to be untenable as the petitioners were already accused in a similar case.