Special Appeal Pending - Writ Petitioner's interest to be protected

When special appeal involving the same questions of law which are subject matter of a fresh writ petition is pending adjudication, the interest of the writ petitioner is to be protected in the interim. 

Writ Petition No. 4047 of 2012 (S/S) dated 24.8.2012

Strict Construction of Taxing Statutes

A taxing statute, as is well-known, must be construed strictly. In Sneh
Enterprises v. Commissioner of Customs [2006] 7 SCC 714, it was held :

"While dealing with a taxing provision, the principle of 'Strict Interpre-
tation should be applied. The Court shall not interpret the statutory
provision in such a manner which would create an additional fiscal burden on
a person. It would never be done by invoking the provisions of another Act,
which are not attracted. It is also trite that while two interpretations are
possible, the Court ordinarily would interpret the provisions in favour of a
taxpayer and against the Revenue."

Alternative Remedy - Writ & Arbitration

AIR 2012 Chh 123 (relying on AIR 2008 SC 2160)

 

Action is not for enforcment of contractual obligation, but to protection the Petitioner from arbitrary action of the State - writ would be maintainable.

Cooperative Society would be public authority - if substantially financed

http://delhicourts.nic.in/JAN12/Northern%20zone%20Railway%20Employees%20Vs.pdf

 

AIR 2012  Del 112

 

NZRE Coop v. Central Registrar, Co-op Society

Societies registered under the Cooperative Socities Act would be 'public authority'

AIR 2012 Kerala 124 (Full Bench)

 

Right to Information Act

Debt Recovert Tribunal and Code of Civil Procedure

The DRT is not bound by Code of Civil Procedure, it has jurisdiction to exercise powers of Court as contained in Civil Procedure Code; it can travel beyond CPC provided it obserbes principles of natural justice.

 

AIR 2012 Bom 127

entitlement of back wages

 In PNB v. Virendra Kumar Goel, AIR 2004 SC 3988, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to hold as under:

 

"The applicants shall be reinstated into their posts with continuity in service, back wages and all consequential benefits as are entitled to them under the law. They shall, however, refund the entire amount deposited into their bank accounts with interest accrued, if any, to the bank. Full refund of the amount by the applicants would be the condition precedent for reinstatement. Mr. Mukul Rohtagi learned ASG submits that applying the principle of 'No Work No Pay', back wages should not be allowed to them on their reinstatement. We are unable to accept this contention. The applicants were out of their jobs for no fault of theirs. Even otherwise, party in breach of contract can hardly seek for any equitable relief."

 

Similar view has been taken by this Hon'ble Court in 2007(3)ADJ1 Brijendra Prakash v. Director of Education and also in 2007 4 AWC 3382, Ram Narain Singh's Case, and in Mukeem Ahmad v. State of UP, Writ Petition No. 4599 of 2010 (S/S) dated 5.1.2011 (reported at MANU/UP/0056/2011

No work no pay - not applicable in case of forced retirement

2007(3)ADJ1, 2008 6 AWC5580 - Brijendra Prakash

Consequence of transaction in breach of court order

It is well settled principle of law that an authority proceeding with any matter after the prohibitory order passed by the Competent Court, has to be seriously viewed and the parties should be put back to the original position as no one can be permitted to enjoy the fruits of any order which was passed in contravention to the stay order. The said principle is fully explained by the Honourable Supreme Court in the decision reported in 2010 (4) SC 519 Manohar Lal (D) by Lrs v. Ugrasen (D) by Lrs.)

See also: 
2011(3)CTC46 (Madras)
AIR 1967 SC 1386
 AIR 1996 SC 135
AIR 2007 SC 1386

Writ not maintainable when consequential order alone is challenged

2011 29 LCD 610

Land Acquisition - Avoid Agricultural Land

Raghbir Singh Sehrawat v. State of Haryana, (2012) 1 SCC 792

Order II, Rule 2

Case :- MISC. BENCH No. - 2198 of 2012

Petitioner :- M/S.Roxy Petrochem Pvt.Ltd.Delhi Through Its Director

Respondent :- U.P.Financial Corporation Limited Kanpur Through M.D.&

Ors.

Petitioner Counsel :- S.B.Pandey

Respondent Counsel :- Prashant Kumar

Alternative Remedy

A Full Bench of this Court in Chandrama Singh Vs. Managing Director, U.P. Cooperative Union, Lucknow and others, 1991 (2) UPLEBC 898 has held that when a litigant wants to bye pass statutory alternative remedy, he must plead and place necessary facts in the writ petition to show that alternative remedy is not efficacious and speedy

Obiter dicta is also binding precedent - when

Obiter whether precedent- 2007(5)scc 428, 2012(30)lcd 1066.

Not necessary to hear the Respondent on a restoration application of a case dismissed in default where the Respondent was also absent

2012 (2) AWC 1408

Drawing of adverse inference from non production of documents

http://www.supremelaw.in/2012/07/union-of-india-vs-ibrahim-uddin-anr.html

 

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1374 of 2008

 

Union of India v. Ibrahum uddin, July 17, 2012

 

ssue of drawing adverse inference is required to be decided by the court taking into consideration the pleadings of the parties and by deciding whether any document/evidence, withheld, has any relevance at all or omission of its production would directly establish the case of the other side. The court cannot loose sight of the fact that burden of proof is on the party which makes a factual averment. The court has to consider further as to whether the other side could file interrogatories or apply for inspection and production of the documents etc. as is required under Order XI CPC. Conduct and diligence of the other party is also of paramount importance. Presumption or adverse inference for non-production of evidence is always optional and a relevant factor to be considered in the background of facts involved in the case. Existence of some other circumstances may justify non-production of such documents on some reasonable grounds. In case one party has asked the court to direct the other side to produce the document and other side failed to comply with the court's order, the court may be justified in drawing the adverse inference. All the pros and cons must be examined before the adverse inference is drawn. Such presumption is permissible, if other larger evidence is shown to the contrary.