Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 63 (1.85 seconds)
Documents citing Federation Of Obstetrics And ... vs Union Of India on 3 May, 2019

M/S.Tvs Srichakara Ltd vs Union Of India on 2 August, 2024

15. It is further submitted that the petitioner has sent a representation on 14.07.2023 claiming similar concession as was ordered _____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No. 13 of 28 W.P.(MD) No.28227 of 2023 and Cont.P.(MD)No.462 of 2024 by this Court in its order dated 06.07.2022 in W.P.(MD)No.15449 of 2020 etc. batch in the case of Madurai District Private Bus Owners Association, Rep. by its Secretary vs. Union of India. However, no action has been taken by the respondents on the said representation.
Madras High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - C Saravanan - Full Document

Dr. Sunil Puri vs The State on 21 September, 2024

Reliance placed on judgment titled as Federation of Obstetrics and Gynaecological Societies of India (FOGSI) Vs. Union of India [supra]). The above said makes out a prima facie case against the petitioner Dr. Sunil Puri. It was contended from the side of the revisionist that there are contradiction in the testimonies of the witnesses regarding the documents recovered and the raid and the seizure of documents but what exactly are the contradictions have not been specified and the fact of the matter is that the documents were seized from the Center of the accused Dr. Mangala Telang where accused Dr. Sunil Puri was working as ultrasonologist which makes out a prima facie case against the revisionist / accused Dr. Sunil Puri for his failure to give declaration as required under Rule 10(1A) of the Digitally PC and PNDT Act.
Delhi District Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State Of U.P. And 2 Others vs Jai Prakash Uttam And Another on 16 June, 2021

"Whether a single post of Class III available in the Intermediate College governed by the 1921 Act can be filled by way of promotion and whether the case of Palak Dhari Yadav, reported in (1999) 3 UPLBEC 2315, has been correctly decided keeping in view the opinion expressed by another Single Judge in Writ petition No.4165 of 2004 as also the pronouncement of the Apex Court in the cae of B. Badami Vs. State of Mysore and All India Fedration V. Union of India."
Allahabad High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Shri Thangjam Arunkumar vs Shri Yumkham Erabot Singh on 11 April, 2023

[19] In the case of "Lok Prahari through its General Secretary Vs. Union of India & ors.", reported in (2018) 4 SCC 699, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that non-disclosure of assets and source of income by the candidate and their associates would constitute a corrupt practice falling under the heading "undue influence" as defined under Section 123(2) of the RP Act, 1951. The relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid judgment are as under:-
Manipur High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Khuraijam Loken Singh vs Shri Oinam Lukhoi Singh on 29 May, 2023

[10] In the case of "Lok Prahari through its General Secretary Vs. Union of India & ors.", reported in (2018) 4 SCC 699, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that non-disclosure of assets and source of income by the candidate and their associates would constitute a corrupt practice falling under the heading "undue influence" as defined under Section 123(2) of the RP Act, 1951. The relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid judgments are as under:-
Manipur High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 Next