Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 55 (0.84 seconds)

Maroti S/O Vyankati Gaikwad And Others vs Dy. Director And Member Secretary, The ... on 15 September, 2023

Srish Kumar Choudhury Vs. State of Tripura (supra) in para 21 lays down that entries in the Presidential order cannot be added to or subtracted from, unless done by Parliament. All entries have to be read as it is. Enquiry under Article 342(2) is only permitted by legislature. Entries done in 15 Presidential Order are after considering research/Gazetteers/Glossaries/reports/ consultation with Governor / State and cannot be now gone into by Courts. 10.1.
Bombay High Court Cites 90 - Cited by 0 - A G Gharote - Full Document

K.L. Karibeeran And Another vs State Of Tamil Nadu And Another on 8 July, 1994

34. Learned counsel for the petitioners prays for leave to file an appeal before the Supreme Court. We have only followed the principles laid down in Srish Kumar Choudhury v. State of Tripura, AIR 1990 SC 991. Hence, we do not think that this is a fit case for granting leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. In our opinion, it does not involve any substantial question of law. Nor does the question need to be decided by the Supreme Court.
Madras High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Smt. Sremayee Debbarma vs The State Of Tripura on 31 October, 2017

Independently, the persons who would like to rely on those documents have to establish that they belong to the tribe as distinguished from the Deshi Tripuri in terms of the said judgment of the Apex Court. Therefore, those documents particularly in these cases when the issue is whether the status is of Tripura, Tripuri or Tippera or Deshi Tripuri or Laskar those documents cannot have much relevance as a proof for determining the status. Moreover, the appreciation of the documents under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against such administrative authority which were constituted for declaring someone's status is restrictive in nature.
Tripura High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - S Talapatra - Full Document

Mukul Kumar Das vs M/O Railways on 12 September, 2018

7. By taking into consideration the entire conspectus of the case as well as the ratio laid down by the Hon‟ble Gauhati High Court mentioned above as well as without issuing notice, I feel it deem fit and proper to issue a direction upon the respondents to consider the case of the applicant in view of the foregoing discussion. But it is seen that the application has not exhausted the alternative remedies as provided under Section 20 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 before approaching this Tribunal. Hence, I prefer to direct the applicant to make a comprehensive representation before the respondent authority by ventilating his grievances within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt copy of this order. On receipt of such representation, the respondent authority shall consider and dispose of the same within a period of two months thereafter keeping in mind that the applicant is in the verge of retirement and nearly 1 ½ years left of his service.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Gauhati Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Kerala Pattika Jathi Samrekshana ... vs State Of Kerala And Ors. on 14 March, 1995

It is also the admitted case of respondent No. 12 viz. the Kerala Thandan Service Society that they are the real Thandans and they do not belong to a section of Ezhava/Thiyya community. Therefore, in so far as the status of Thandans is concerned, the contention of the petitioners as well as the Government that all Thandans in Malabar area are title holders of Ezhava/ Thiyya community and they are not the genuine Thandans, cannot be countenanced. The Supreme Court in Srish Kumar Choudhury v. State of Tripura, AIR 1990 SC 991 held Presidential notification regarding entries in the Order is final and it is not open to the Court to make by addition or substraction.
Kerala High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 4 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 Next