Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 1469 (2.20 seconds)
Documents citing Union Of India vs H. C. Goel on 30 August, 1963

Ajai Kumar Srivastava vs Dy. General Manager Varanasi & Others on 24 April, 2018

In Union of India v. H.C. Goel the Constitution Bench has held: (AIR p.. 370,para 23) "23.......... the High Court can and must enquire whether there is any evidence at all in support of the impugned conclusion. In other words, if the whole of the evidence led in the enquiry is accepted as true, does the conclusion follow that the charge in question is proved against the respondent? This approach will avoid weighing the evidence. It will take the evidence as it stands and only examine whether on that evidence legally the impugned conclusion follows or not."
Allahabad High Court Cites 41 - Cited by 0 - Siddharth - Full Document

Sri Soumitra Chakma vs The State Of Tripura on 6 August, 2025

―22.... The two infirmities are separate and distinct though, conceivably, in some cases both may be present. There may be cases of no evidence even where the Government is acting bona fide; the said infirmity may also exist where the Government is acting mala fide and in that case, the conclusion of the Government not supported by any evidence may be the result of mala fides but that does not mean that if it is proved that there is no evidence to support the conclusion of the Government, a writ of certiorari will not issue without further Page 17 of 44 proof of mala fides. That is why we are not prepared to accept the learned Attorney General's argument that since no mala fides are alleged against the appellant in the present case, no writ of certiorari can be issued in favour of the respondent.
Tripura High Court Cites 47 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

The State Of Bihar And Ors vs Vijay Kumar Chaurasia on 7 November, 2022

8. The aforesaid case is in respect of analyzing evidence whereas in the present case evidence was not adduced by the presenting officer. Therefore, one cannot draw inference that the present case is on the point of no evidence. Unless and until evidence is adduced and if analyzation of adduced evidence, if the authority come to the conclusion that it is a case of no evidence or Court come to the conclusion that it is a case of no evidence, in that event, the cited decision namely Union of India v. H.C. Goel (supra) is applicable.
Patna High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - P B Bajanthri - Full Document

Mohd. Salim Beg vs Secretary on 6 January, 2014

22. We are not prepared to accept this contention. Mala fide exercise of power can be attacked independently on the ground that it is mala fide. Such an exercise of power is always liable to be quashed on the main ground that it is not a bona fide exercise of power. But we are not prepared to hold that if mala fides are not alleged and bona fides are assumed in favour of the appellant, its conclusion on a question of fact cannot be successfully challenged even if it is manifest that there is no evidence to support it. The two infirmities are separate and distinct though, conceivably, in some cases both may be present. There may be cases of no evidence even where the Government is acting bona fide; the said infirmity may also exist where the Government is acting mala fide and in that case, the conclusion of the Government not supported by any evidence may be the result of mala fides but that does not mean that if it is proved that there is no evidence to support the conclusion of the Government, a writ of certiorari will not issue without further proof of mala fides. That is why we are prepared to accept the learned Attorney-General's argument that since no mala fides are alleged against the appellant in the present case, no writ of certiorari can be issued in favour of the respondent.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Punamchand Meghaji Shikhare vs Superintendent Of Police And Ors. on 7 February, 1983

"Mala fide exercise of power can be attacked independently on the ground that it is mala fide. Such an exercise of power is always liable to be quashed on the main ground that it is not a bona fide exercise of power. But we are not prepared to hold that if mala fides are not alleged and bona fides are assumed in favour of the appellant, its conclusion on a question of fact cannot be successfully challenged even if it is manifest that there is not evidence to support it. The two infirmities are separate and distinct though, conceivable, in some cases both may be present. There may be cases of no evidence even where the Government is acting bona fide, the said infirmity may also exist where the Government is acting mala fide and in that case, the conclusion of the Government not supported by any evidence may be the result of mala fides but that does not mean that if it is proved that there is no evidence to support the conclusion of the Government, a writ of certiorari will not issue without further proof of mala fides."
Bombay High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ashwani Sharma vs Gnctd on 6 November, 2025

In Union of India v. H.C. Goel [AIR 1964 SC 364 : (1964) 4 SCR 718] it was held: (AIR pp. 369-70, paras 22-23) "22. ... The two infirmities are separate and distinct though, conceivably, in some cases both may be present. There may be cases of no evidence even where the Government is acting bona fide; the said infirmity may also exist where the Government is acting mala fide and in that case, the conclusion of the Government not supported by any evidence may be the result of mala fides but that does not mean that if it is proved that there is no evidence to support the conclusion of the Government, a writ of certiorari will not issue without further proof of mala fides. That is why we are not prepared to accept the learned Attorney General's argument that since no mala fides are alleged against the appellant in the present case, no writ of certiorari can be issued in favour of the respondent.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 61 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next