Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 827 (0.99 seconds)
Documents citing Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya vs State Of U.P.& Ors on 13 December, 2012

Maya Devi vs ) State Through Chief Secretary on 5 June, 2014

Maya Devi v. State through Chief Secretary & Ors. CS No. 91/12 Thereafter, when Sh. Ramanand did not return for a couple of hours, the plaintiff and other family members got worried about him and started searching for him at all the places he could have been found but the plaintiff could not find him anywhere. It is further averred that when Sh. Ramanand did not return even on the next day and could not be found by anyone, the plaintiff along with other relatives approached the police station at Sangam Vihar and a missing report was filed by Sh. Kishen Lal, brother­in­law of plaintiff on 28.03.2004 at around 07:50 pm. Thereafter, several missing notices were advertised on notice boards, advertising poles and at other places in and around Sangam Vihar but Sh. Ramanand could not be traced. It is avereed that the plaintiff and her family members have not been able to trace Sh. Ramanand since 27.03.2004. Further, they have not heard of him from anyone during all theses years. It is further submitted that the plaintiff does not have any grievance against any of the defendants and they have been arrayed as defendants because they are necessary parties to the this suit. It is admitted by the plaintiff that he has not filed any other similar suit with respect to the same cause of action in any court of law and the suit is not barred by limitation.
Delhi District Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shri B M Patel Education Trust vs Hemchandracharya South Gujarat ... on 16 June, 2014

6.3 As regards the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya v. State of Uttar Pradesh (supra), it was submitted that the same would apply only where NCTE has granted unconditional recognition. It was further submitted that as per the resolution dated 12 th May, 2014, the petitioner was required to produce the documents referred to therein within a period of 15 days. However, the petitioner has not submitted the required Page 12 of 35 C/SCA/7813/2014 JUDGMENT documents and therefore, admittedly the conditions for affiliation are not satisfied. Even otherwise, undisputedly, after the grant of recognition, the petitioner had mortgaged the land and there is nothing to show that as on the date when the impugned resolution came to be passed, the property was not mortgaged. It was submitted that it was on the basis of the documents produced by the petitioner, including extracts of the village forms No.6 and 7/12 pertaining to the land in question it was found that the required conditions were not fulfilled, that the impugned resolution came to be passed stipulating that the petitioner's application for affiliation shall be considered only upon compliance of such condition. It was, accordingly, urged that the petition being devoid of any merit or substance deserves to be dismissed.
Gujarat High Court Cites 38 - Cited by 5 - H Devani - Full Document

Shivam College Of Higher Studies vs The Bihar School Examination Board on 8 October, 2021

14. The learned counsel for the Respondent-BSEB has referred to yet another identical matter being CWJC No. 3936 of 2019, wherein, this Hon'ble Court, upon considering the provisions of the BSEB Regulations, 2016, has held that in view of the schedule fixed by the Apex Court in case of Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya (supra), the relief as claimed by the petitioner of the said case, cannot be granted for the academic year 2017-19. Similarly, in the present Writ petition also the petitioner's claim for according affiliation for the academic session 2016-18 is not tenable in the eyes of law, hence the present writ petition is fit to be dismissed.
Patna High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - M K Shah - Full Document

Malwanchal University Indore Thru. Dr. ... vs National Council For Teachers ... on 3 November, 2016

When the aforesaid provisions of law are applied to the facts available to the present case, it is clear that undisputedly the application filed by the petitioner was filed not just beyond the period of 15 days from the of filing online application and was infact served on the authorities about a month after the cut off date of 30.06.2015 and therefore, the same has rightly been rejected by the authorities by the impugned orders. It is also an admitted and undisputed fact that the applicant did not just default in filing a copy of online application within 15 days as required by regulation 7(2)(b) but also failed to submit a hard copy of the land documents which were filed by the petitioner along with his application as provided under regulation 5(4) of the Regulation 2014 and therefore, in the absence of the hard copy of the application or the land documents the application has been rejected by the authorities in view of the provision of regulation 7(2)(b) of the regulation 2014 which mandates that the application for recognition shall be summarily rejected on failure to submit the print out of the applications made online along with the land documents as required under sub regulation (4) of Regulation 5 within 15 days of the submission of the online application. We are constrained to observe that we are in respectful disagreement with the observation made by the Delhi High Court in the cases relied upon by the petitioner for two reasons, firstly; as in the instant case, there was no challenge to the constitutional validity of Regulation 7(2) (b) of NCTE in those cases and therefore the regulations which are statutory in nature have to be complied with and except in exceptional circumstances, a direction rendering the provisions otios could not have been issued and secondly; the Supreme Court in several decisions has not just upheld the validity of Regulations 5 and 7 but has also observed that the application for recognition should be processed within the time frame prescribed by the regulations which has been held to be mandatory and inflexible by the Supreme Court in the cases of Maa Vaishnavo Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya Vs. State of U.P. and others (2013) 2 SCC 617 and College of Professional Education Vs. State of U.P. (2013) 2 SCC 721 and therefore the time frame prescribed under the regulations cannot be overlooked as mere procedural or technical and has to be adhered to by all concerned.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Shri Harakchand Chourdiya College ... vs National Council For Teacher Education on 2 November, 2016

In the circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the aforesaid decisions of the Delhi High Court is totally misconceived. We are required to follow the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the cases of Maa Vaishno Devi (supra) and College of Professional Education (supra) and to take into consideration the NCTE Regulations.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next