When a decree of divorce is sought under Section 13 of the Act, in view of compromise between the petitioner and the respondent, estoppel cannot operate against the Respondent. Rule of estoppel is a rule of evidence. There can be no estoppel against statute. Section 13-B itself gives liberty for second thought to the parties. The consent must continue during the interregnum period and after this period the parties should again confirm their consent before the Court. Parties can withdraw their consent during this period. As such Rule of estoppel has no application in a petition under Section 13-B of the Act.
The High Court has power of an appeal against the award of the tribunal, under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act filed by a person aggrieved but that would not mean that against an order of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal which is not an award, the writ of certiorari would not lie.
Rent is the consideration paid for use and occupation of property and in broader sense, it is the compensation or fee paid, usually periodically, for the use of the rented property, land, buildings, equipment and the like.
Under Section 24(2) land acquisition proceedings initiated under the 1894 Act, by legal fiction, are deemed to have lapsed where award has been made five years or more prior to the commencement of 2013 Act and possession of the land is not taken or compensation has not been paid.
Quashing of the notifications for acquisition of the land would not come in the way of the Authorities in acquiring the land of the petitioners under the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013
Any order which substantially affects the rights of the accused, or decides certain rights of the parties cannot be said to be an interlocutory order so as to bar a revision to the High Court against that order.
While rejecting claim of the Petitioner, the Court reiterated the legal position that once the land is vested in the State, free from all encumbrances, it cannot be divested and proceedings under the Act would not lapse, even if an award is not made within the statutorily stipulated period
A writ of Mandamus was sought in the present matter pertaining to alleged non-payment of dues under a contract of supply of goods. High Court held that in matter of such nature it would neither be prudent nor judicious for the Court to grant relief in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution as in substance the relief sought was for obtaining a money decree, more so when contracts are purely non-statutory in nature.
Once the Act provides for a statutory remedy of arbitration in terms of Section 18(4), it was held that the relief of certiorari as sought for quashing all the proceedings before the Council was manifestly misconceived.