Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.52 seconds)
Documents citing Kerala State Haj Committee vs Union Of India on 13 March, 2018

Abdhesh Yadav vs Mahendra Pradad Yadav on 13 December, 2024

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the injunction petition and submitted that the appellate court has rightly held that the sale deed dated 29.10.1958 is forged which is the final court of fact and cannot be reversed in the Second Appeal and the land in question is an agricultural land. So the injunction cannot be granted in the subject matter. Learned counsel for the respondents has also placed reliance in the case of State of Patna High Court SA No.429 of 2018(18) dt.13-12-2024 4/6 Kerala Vs Union of India reported in AIR 2024 SC (Civil) 1114 wherein the appellate court has held that:-
Patna High Court - Orders Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - K Reza - Full Document

The State Of Maharashtra Thr Collector, ... vs Girish Jugalkishor Sikchi on 9 June, 2025

10. Apparently, directions issued by the Trial Court are beyond scope of stipulations in the Government Resolution dated 6.10.1994. Admittedly, in pursuance to decision of the Government, lease agreement was never executed nor allotment of land was made. Government decision was valid only for two years and if such decision 7 SA 350.97.odt was not implemented, plaintiff cannot claim right in perpetuity to seek implementation of decision, which had life for limited period of two years. This Court, therefore, holds that the decree, as passed by the Trial Court and confirmed by the District Court is contrary to stipulations in Government Resolution dated 6.10.1994, by which approval for allotment of open space in favour of plaintiff for limited period of two years was accorded. Therefore, decree in nature of perpetual injunction to continue lease for two years from the date of execution of terms and conditions of lease deed cannot be countenanced. When decision itself was not implemented and lease-deed is not executed; plaintiff cannot claim any right, particularly, entitlement to seek a decree of mandatory injunction. At this stage, it can be observed that there is vast difference in a concept of prohibitory and mandatory injunction. The parameters to grant such relief can be best understand by referring to observations of Supreme Court of India in case of State of Kerala Vs. Union of India reported in (2024) 7 SCC 183 Particularly, in para no. 14, which reads thus :-
Bombay High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S. Kashish Developers Limited vs Employees Provident Fund Organization on 2 December, 2025

13. Extensive reliance was placed upon a recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Kerala vs. Union of India reported in (2024) 7 SSC 183 and it was contended that the Tribunal was obligated to consider the prima facie case of the Petitioner which was not considered by it, and, in a mechanical manner order of pre-deposit/waiver was passed. Petitioner vehemently submitted that it made all payments to its contractors including security agencies through banking channel and even furnished details of the contractors to the Adjudicating Authority. However, Adjudicating Authority without even conducting any enquiry from the contractors who were registered under EPF Act proceeded to pass the adjudication order fastening liability upon Petitioner.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - D Roshan - Full Document

M/S. Kashish Developers Limited vs Employees Provident Fund Organization on 2 December, 2025

13. Extensive reliance was placed upon a recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Kerala vs. Union of India reported in (2024) 7 SSC 183 and it was contended that the Tribunal was obligated to consider the prima facie case of the Petitioner which was not considered by it, and, in a mechanical manner order of pre-deposit/waiver was passed. Petitioner vehemently submitted that it made all payments to its contractors including security agencies through banking channel and even furnished details of the contractors to the Adjudicating Authority. However, Adjudicating Authority without even conducting any enquiry from the contractors who were registered under EPF Act proceeded to pass the adjudication order fastening liability upon Petitioner.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - D Roshan - Full Document
1