Promoted on an ad-hoc basis in 2006, kept on for six years, then reverted, a group of MCD junior engineers spent two decades litigating for regularisation. The Supreme Court, deprecating the Corporation’s apathy, held that once the Lieutenant Governor approved the rule relaxation the approval related back to 2006, and ordered regularisation and consequential benefits from the date they were first promoted.
A UP distribution company demanded over Rs 57 lakh in minimum consumption charges in 2007 for an additional load it had offered, but never released, back in 1998. The Supreme Court dismissed the discom’s appeal, holding that electricity charges become ‘first due’ only when a bill is issued, and that a demand raised nine years later was barred by limitation.
The Supreme Court has dismissed an electricity distribution company’s appeal over a Rs 57.74 lakh minimum-consumption demand raised in 2007 for a 1998 period, holding the claim time-barred, and reaffirming that a power utility cannot recover dues by disconnection beyond the two-year limitation under Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act. New Delhi: The Supreme Court […]
The Tripura High Court held that senior citizens lacking technological proficiency cannot be penalised for failing to track court cases online. Setting aside a dismissal in a property dispute, the Court emphasised that digital access and technological awareness vary significantly among elderly litigants.
The Supreme Court ruled that appeals under Section 21 of the NIA Act cannot be dismissed solely for being filed after the 90-day limit. The court is reviewing if the limitation is mandatory or directory, as contrasting rulings from Bombay and Madras High Courts create uncertainty. The final decision may significantly impact future cases.
In a 47-page judgment, the court determined that the suit was filed within the limitation period and that only the appellant husband had the right to file it. The high court noted that the family court had erred in dismissing the case. Allahabad: In allowing an appeal against a family court decision, the Allahabad High […]
![[Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Idgah Dispute] Temple is a Protected Monument Under 1958 Act, Hindu Side Tells HC](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/MicrosoftTeams-image-35.png?resize=447%2C367&ssl=1)
On 2nd May, The ongoing Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Idgah dispute involves the Hindu side presenting arguments to recognize the temple as a protected monument under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958. The Allahabad High Court is addressing concerns regarding the suit’s maintainability, with the next hearing scheduled for May 7 for the Muslim side’s arguments.
The Hindu side asserts that the deity was not involved in the compromise or court decree in the Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Idgah dispute at the Allahabad High Court. They argue against the applicability of the Waqf Act and emphasize the property’s historical and religious significance. The legal battle continues.