Legal Reference Library

Delhi High Court, refusing to entertain a writ petition by a Hotel fined with an amount of 41 Lakhs for non-compliance of statutory provisions of Environment Law for a period of more than twenty years, held that a writ petition solely praying for refund of money against the State is not maintainable. The petitioner contended that, under the threat of imminent closure and penal actions,it paid  Rs.41 lakhs as condonation fee seeking consent to operate, but they are liable to pay Rs. 46,000/- only as per the previous fee structure. Referring to Suganmal vs. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1965 SC 1740, the Court said that a writ petition solely praying for refund of money against the State is not maintainable. The Court noting that for a period of twenty years, neither a “consent to establish” nor a “consent to operate” had been obtained, remarked “To say that the lapse on the part of the petitioner was an innocent non-compliance is to trivialise a statutory provision which has a direct ...

Delhi High Court, refusing to entertain a writ petition by a Hotel fined with an amount of 41 Lakhs for non-compliance of statutory provisions of Environment Law for a period of more than twenty years, held that a writ petition solely praying for refund of money against the State is not maintainable. Referring to Suganmal vs. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1965 SC 1740, the Court said that a writ petition solely praying for refund of money against the State is not maintainable. Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/writ-petition-solely-praying-refund-money-state-not-maintainable-delhi-hc/

In Muhammed Siyad P.A. & Ors. v. Sreejith Appu & Ors [W.A No:1135/2015 &other connected cases] the petitioners based on the position of their rank, claimed before the single bench,that they are eligible for consideration towards appointment to various posts of Assistant Executive Engineers existing in the Kerala State Electricity Board(K.S.E.B).The petitioners taking rescue under an information obtained under the R.T.I application, contended that various vacancies (Unfilled/anticipated) existed in the K.S.E.B, so as to substantiate their claim towards appointment.Hence they interalia pleaded for a direction to the respondent K.S.E.B , to notify these vacancies before the Public Service Commission [P.S.C] and to further advise candidates from the rank list to these claimed vacancies as expeditiously as possible, highlighting the expiry of rank list on 15/12/13. Petitioners made a further plea, by placing support on the information received under R.T.I application to harbor t...

In INDIAN MACHINERY COMPANY Vs M/S. ANSAL HOUSING & CONSTRUCTION LTD., the Hon'ble Supreme Court stated that only question that has arisen in this appeal is whether a second complaint to the District Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is maintainable when the first complaint was dismissed for default or non- prosecution. The National Commission has taken the view in the impugned order that the second complaint would not be maintainable. The Hon'ble court decided that there is no provision parallel to the provision contained in Order 9 Rule 9(1) CPC which contains a prohibition that if a suit is dismissed in default of the plaintiff under Order 9 Rule 8, a second suit on the same cause of action would not lie. That being so, the rule of prohibition contained in Order 9 Rule 9(1) CPC cannot be extended to the proceedings before the District Forum or the State Commission. The fact that the case was not decided on merits and was dismissed in default of non-appear...

The Madras High court today said as per 'dharma', sons are duty-bound to maintain the mother and directed a man settled in Canada and earning Rs. 3 lakh a month, to provide his mother living in India with Rs. 15,000 a month. Disposing of a criminal revision petition filed by the first son of the woman, Pon Devaki, Justice S Vimala of the Court's Madurai Bench, said the "right of the mother to expect her children to maintain (her) is not only statutory right, constitutional right, fundamental right, natural and moral right but also human right." The petition challenged the order of the Madurai Family Court to pay Rs. 3000 a month to his mother. The judge said "as per "dharma", the sons are duty-bound to maintain the mother. When dharma says that sons should take care of their parents, it means duty, breach of duty is punishable," the judge said. The judge said the son should not have made his mother approach the Family Court. The first s...