Building is "service". 2012 5 SCC 359

Sale of fully developed plots with assured facilities is "service"

a person convicted on charges of corruption should not be allowed to continue in service until his conviction is set aside by appellate court. The High Court in appeal has not stayed

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 66949 of 2010  (Allahabad) (2010 ILR 1278)

 

Constitution of India Art. 226-Revision of  Subsistence allowance-petitioner-after  conviction under 7/3 prevention of   corruption Act-during pendency of
appeal-granted bail-unless conviction  set-a-side not entitled for relief claimed. 

 

Held: Para 8  In our opinion, a person convicted on charges of corruption should not be  allowed to continue in service until his conviction is set aside by appellate court. The High Court in appeal has not stayed
the conviction of the petitioner. 

Every Tribunal has got inherent power to recall an order of DD is sufficient cause is shown

 

2012 (2) AWC 1984

Kesarwani Zarda Bhandar v. Subhash Chandra Kesarwani

Service of Process on wife is not good in law

Service of process on wife is not valid service in law under Order 5, Rule 15

2012 (3) ALJ 212 (Kishore Kumar Arora v. Harvindar )

Notice is sufficient if not received due to house locked etc.

Notice to respondent - service of Address respondent managing to have the notices returned with postal remark "Not available in the house" house locked" and "shop closed" respectively- Held, Notice must be deemed to have been served on the respondents


1. State of M. P. Vs. Hiralal and Others, reported in (1996) 7 SCC 523.

2. Uttam Chand and Another Vs. 6th Additional District Judge, Jhanshi and Others, reported in 2000 (18) LCD 1090.

3. Fazal Ahmad Vs. K. N. Jain reported in 2000 (1) Allahabad Rent Cases 423 and 2000 (18) LCD 786

Writ does not lie even against State for specific performance

2004 2 AWC1770

 

Ram Nagar Allottees Association v/s LDA

Charge in Disciplinary Inquiry if admitted need not be proved

2008(3)ALD103(SC), 3(2008)CLT140, [2008(117)FLR377], JT2008(4)SC51, (2008)IILLJ645SC, (2008)4MLJ116(SC), 2008(4)SCALE172, (2008)5SCC569, 2008(3)SLJ424(SC), (2008)2UPLBEC1041

 

Appellants: Chairman and MD V.S.P. and Ors.
Vs.
Respondent: Goparaju Sri Prabhakara Hari Babu

Sub Silentio

Case :WRIT C No. 23970 of 2008

Petitioner :Public Welfare Hospital

Respondent :State Of U.P. Thru' Chief Secy. & Others

Single Judge

 

Impleadment in case of allegation of malafide / malice

136(2007)DLT703, 2007(94)DRJ184

 

Alleged that action taken at the behest of MP, but MP himself not impleaded; allegation of malafide cannot be accepted.

Exorbitant Amount Stamp Duty demand can be challenged in WP

2011 (29) LCD 2109 (SC)

 

Transfer at the instance of MLA

MLA is elected representative of the people, and as such even if transfer is done at his instance, there cannot be any grievance. 2007 (8) SCC 150

Land Acquisition - Urgency in "Residential Purpose" acquisition

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 17 - The power of urgency by the Government for a public purpose like Residential Scheme cannot be invoked as a rule but has to be by way of exception.

 

Ram Dhari Jindal Memorial Trust Vs. Union of India and Others

MARCH 21, 2012

CIVIL APPEAL No. 3813 of 2007 

Candidate who had taken part in the selection process knowing fully well the procedure laid down therein are not entitled to question the same

Anil Kumar, J

2012 (30) LCD 415

Cut off date for eligibility is the last date for filing for application forms

Mohit Singh v. State of UP, 2012 (30) LCD 120

Person against whom malice is alleged should be made party by name

Shyam Baboo v. State of UP, 2012 (30) LCD 404 (All)

Compliance with Rule 3A of Chapter XXII - Public Interest Litigation

Credentials of the Petitioners to be shown and proved - 2012 (1) LCD 394 (following (2010) 3 SCC 402)

It must be stated in the PIL that "the result of the litigation will not lead to any undue loss to any person, body of persons or the State"  - 2012 (1) LCD 666 (but requirement dispensed with as interim measure)


See also MISB 11510 of 2011

Limitation of 59 days condoned

2011 AWC (3) 2745 (SC) - Indian Oil Corp v. Subrata

Stamp Duty Potential value

Agricultural being valued as residential absent declaration under Section 143
2011 (3) AWC 3093 - Sunti Bunti Automobiles (Pankaj Mithal)

public purpose may change one from another

In Union of India v. Jaswant Rai Kochhar reported inMANU/SC/0358/1996 : 1996 (3) SCC 491 land acquired for housing scheme was utilised for commercial purpose i.e. a District Centre. This Court held in that matter that it is will settled law that land sought to be acquired forone public purpose may be used for another public purpose. In State of Maharashtra v. Mahadeo Deoman Rai reported in MANU/SC/0471/1990 : 1990 (3) SCC 579 yet another Bench of three Judges had held that requirement of public purpose may change from time to time but the change will not vitiate the acquisition proceeding.

 

Also: JT2011(12)SC298

"Person Aggrieved"

Allahabad High Court

MISC. SINGLE No. - 7254 of 2011 (Committee of Management)

MISC. SINGLE No. - 1794 of 2010 (Subsequent withdrawal of power to prosecute, loss of locus standi)

MISC. SINGLE No. - 316 of 2012 (Subsequent allottee) 

Supreme Court

(1975) 2 SCC 702 (Bar Council v. MV Dabholkar)

(1976) 1 SCC 671 (Jasbhai Motibhai)

 

 

 

 

Witness/ Judge and proseuctor cannot be the same person

http://www.stpl-india.in/SCJFiles/2010_STPL(Web)_773_SC.pdf

 

 

Appellate order not to be passed by the same officer who has passed the basic order impugned in appeal.

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 24629 of 2012
Petitioner :- Mohd. Chand And Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
Petitioner Counsel :- Satish Mandhyan
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.

 

Appellate order not to be passed by the same officer who has passed the basic order impugned in appeal.

Justice Anil Kumar on Review

Chandra Bhushan Pandey
7770 MB of 2011
2012 1 ADJ 399

Condonation of delay on the ground of lack of funds

Delay of 127 days condoned as the person was unemployed and cud not manage sufficient funds

Navneet Kumar v. State of UP 2012 (1) ADJ 377

Expedite - consumer forum

Delay in proceeding because of lack of quorum - expedite application allowed
2012 (1) ADJ 26