Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 307 (1.73 seconds)
Documents citing Bihar School Examination Board vs Subhas Chandra Sinha, & Ors on 10 March, 1970

Ku. Pratibha Singh (Minor) vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Judgement ... on 11 April, 2014

In the case of Subhas Chandra Sinha (supra), the Apex Court opined that from the Scheme of the Act under consideration, in an emergency, the power of the Chairman were co-terminus with that of the Board who can take action and later report to the Board. Action so taken by the Chairman, in that case, when reported to the Board, was fully endorsed by the Board. The action of cancellation of the examination at a particular centre was taken by the Chairman. The Court then went on consider the question whether in such a situation giving an opportunity to the examinees/candidates was imperative. The Apex Court opined that it was not necessary for the Board to give an opportunity to the candidates if the examination as a whole were being cancelled because of unfair means were adopted on large scale at the concerned centre. The Apex Court found that in comparison to the answer books showed such a remarkable agreement in the answers which left no doubt that the students had assistance from an outside source.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 92 - Cited by 55 - Full Document

R.Prema Latha vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 17 November, 2022

The Board had not charged any one with unfair means so that he could claim to defend himself. The examination was vitiated by adoption of unfair means on a mass scale. In these circumstances it would be wrong to insist that the Board must hold a detailed inquiry into the matter and examine each individual case to satisfy itself which of the candidates had not adopted unfair means. The examination as a whole had to go.” 136/195 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.19939 of 2014 & 36827 of 2016 The Court distinguished an earlier decision observing that : (Subhas Chandra Sinha case [Bihar School Examination Board v. Subhas Chandra Sinha, (1970) 1 SCC 648] , SCC pp. 652-53, para 14) “14.
Madras High Court Cites 36 - Cited by 0 - S M Subramaniam - Full Document

R.Prema Latha vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 17 November, 2022

The Board had not charged any one with unfair means so that he could claim to defend himself. The examination was vitiated by adoption of unfair means on a mass scale. In these circumstances it would be wrong to insist that the Board must hold a detailed inquiry into the matter and examine each individual case to satisfy itself which of the candidates had not adopted unfair means. The examination as a whole had to go.” 136/195 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.19939 of 2014 & 36827 of 2016 The Court distinguished an earlier decision observing that : (Subhas Chandra Sinha case [Bihar School Examination Board v. Subhas Chandra Sinha, (1970) 1 SCC 648] , SCC pp. 652-53, para 14) “14.
Madras High Court Cites 36 - Cited by 0 - S M Subramaniam - Full Document

R.Prema Latha vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 17 November, 2022

The Board had not charged any one with unfair means so that he could claim to defend himself. The examination was vitiated by adoption of unfair means on a mass scale. In these circumstances it would be wrong to insist that the Board must hold a detailed inquiry into the matter and examine each individual case to satisfy itself 137/196 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.19939 of 2014 & 36827 of 2016 which of the candidates had not adopted unfair means. The examination as a whole had to go.” The Court distinguished an earlier decision observing that : (Subhas Chandra Sinha case [Bihar School Examination Board v. Subhas Chandra Sinha, (1970) 1 SCC 648] , SCC pp. 652-53, para 14) “14.
Madras High Court Cites 35 - Cited by 0 - S M Subramaniam - Full Document

R.Prema Latha vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 17 November, 2022

The Board had not charged any one with unfair means so that he could claim to defend himself. The examination was vitiated by adoption of unfair means on a mass scale. In these circumstances it would be wrong to insist that the Board must hold a detailed inquiry into the matter and examine each individual case to satisfy itself 137/196 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.19939 of 2014 & 36827 of 2016 which of the candidates had not adopted unfair means. The examination as a whole had to go.” The Court distinguished an earlier decision observing that : (Subhas Chandra Sinha case [Bihar School Examination Board v. Subhas Chandra Sinha, (1970) 1 SCC 648] , SCC pp. 652-53, para 14) “14.
Madras High Court Cites 35 - Cited by 0 - S M Subramaniam - Full Document

Chairman, All Railway Rec. Board & Anr vs K. Shyam Kumar & Ors on 6 May, 2010

"This is not a case of any particular individual who is being charged with adoption of unfair means but of the conduct of all the examinees or at least a vast majority of them at a particular centre. If it is not a question of charging any one individually with unfair means but to condemn the examination as ineffective for the purpose it was held. Must the Board give an opportunity to all the candidates to represent their cases? We think not. It was not 27 necessary for the Board to give an opportunity to the candidates if the examinations as a whole were being cancelled. The Board had not charged any one with unfair means so that he could claim to defend himself. The examination was vitiated by adoption of unfair means on a mass scale. In these circumstances it would be wrong to insist that the Board must hold a detailed inquiry into the matter and examine each individual case to satisfy itself which of the candidates had not adopted unfair means. The examination as a whole had to go."
Supreme Court of India Cites 22 - Cited by 162 - K Radhakrishnan - Full Document

State Of Tamil Nadu vs P. Krishnamoorthy on 11 May, 2004

15. In so far as other lands, which are not covered by ecological imbalance, the Government can terminate the leases only after issuing six nonths notice as contemplated by Clause 11 of Appendix of Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959. The argument of the learned Advocate General that audi alterem partem rule is not applicable is untenable. The judgments cited by him in BIHAR SCHOOL EXAMINATION BOARD v. SUBHAS CHANDRA SINHA & OTHERS (1970) 1 SCC 648) and UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS v. O. CHAKRADHAR (JT 2002 (2) SC 191) are not applicable to the facts of this case.
Madras High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next