citedby: 51928266

1 - 10 of 35 (0.80 seconds)

Documents citing Union Of India & Ors vs Ramesh Bishnoi on 8 May, 2018

D.Srinivasan vs The Commandant on 2 March, 2022

29. The learned counsel rightly relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS Vs. RAMESH BISHNOI (2019) 19 SUPREME COURT CASES 710. In the extracted observation, it is very clear that under the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act even after the Juvenile is convicted, the same should be obliterated, so that there is no stigma with regard to any crime committed by such a person as a Juvenile. By applying the ratio, the petitioner herein cannot stated to have suffered any conviction as construed by the respondent.

Madras High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - V Parthiban - Full Document

Babus Salaam vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 23 January, 2023

In that view of the matter, this writ petition can be disposed of with a direction to the Dean, Gajra Raja Medical College, Gwalior that in case the petitioner files a fresh representation within fifteen days from today alongwith certified copy of the order being passed today so also the copies of judgments of his acquittal including their translation from Vernacular to English (in case of Gujrat Judgment) then the authorities shall consider the case of the petitioner in the light of Avtar Singh versus Union of India & Others (supra) and Union of India & Others versus Ramesh Bishnoi (supra) and take a decision thereon within a further period of sixty days under communitarian to the petitioner through a speaking order.

Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - V Agarwal - Full Document

Mohit vs Staff Selection Commission (Ssc) on 22 August, 2025

7. Having heard counsel for the parties and perusing the pleadings available on record, we observed that it is not in dispute that the applicant nt was tried and acquitted, acquitted even though on benefit of doubt by Page 9 of 10 Item No.63 (Court-4) O.A. No.2539/2024 the Juvenile Justice Board. Non-disclosure Non disclosure by a minor at a relevant point of time does not hold much water in light of the decisions rendered in Union of India and Ors. vs. Ramesh Bishnoi (supra) and MD Parvej Alam (supra).

Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Vikash vs Comm. Of Police on 8 November, 2023

5.3. This aspect was emphasized by the Supreme Court in a judgment rendered in Union of India and others versus Ramesh Bishnoi (2019) 19 SCC 710, where the appointment of the concerned persons, i.e., one Ramesh Bishnoi was cancelled on the ground that a criminal case had been lodged against him under the provisions of Sections 354, 447 and 509 of the IPC. In this case as well, at the time when the alleged offence was committed, Ramesh Bishnoi was well below eighteen years of age.

Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Hanuman Singh Shekhawat vs Govt. Of Nctd on 8 November, 2023

5.3. This aspect was emphasized by the Supreme Court in a judgment rendered in Union of India and others versus Ramesh Bishnoi (2019) 19 SCC 710, where the appointment of the concerned persons, i.e., one Ramesh Bishnoi was cancelled on the ground that a criminal case had been lodged against him under the provisions of Sections 354, 447 and 509 of the IPC. In this case as well, at the time when the alleged offence was committed, Ramesh Bishnoi was well below eighteen years of age.

Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Manish Kumar vs Comm. Of Police on 8 November, 2023

5.3. This aspect was emphasized by the Supreme Court in a judgment rendered in Union of India and others versus Ramesh Bishnoi (2019) 19 SCC 710, where the appointment of the concerned persons, i.e., one Ramesh Bishnoi was cancelled on the ground that a criminal case had been lodged against him under the provisions of Sections 354, 447 and 509 of the IPC. In this case as well, at the time when the alleged offence was committed, Ramesh Bishnoi was well below eighteen years of age.

Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Vijay vs Govt. Of Nctd on 8 November, 2023

5.3. This aspect was emphasized by the Supreme Court in a judgment rendered in Union of India and others versus Ramesh Bishnoi (2019) 19 SCC 710, where the appointment of the concerned persons, i.e., one Ramesh Bishnoi was cancelled on the ground that a criminal case had been lodged against him under the provisions of Sections 354, 447 and 509 of the IPC. In this case as well, at the time when the alleged offence was committed, Ramesh Bishnoi was well below eighteen years of age.

Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Kuldeep vs Comm. Of Police on 8 November, 2023

5.3. This aspect was emphasized by the Supreme Court in a judgment rendered in Union of India and others versus Ramesh Bishnoi (2019) 19 SCC 710, where the appointment of the concerned persons, i.e., one Ramesh Bishnoi was cancelled on the ground that a criminal case had been lodged against him under the provisions of Sections 354, 447 and 509 of the IPC. In this case as well, at the time when the alleged offence was committed, Ramesh Bishnoi was well below eighteen years of age.

Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Parvesh vs Comm. Of Police on 8 November, 2023

5.3. This aspect was emphasized by the Supreme Court in a judgment rendered in Union of India and others versus Ramesh Bishnoi (2019) 19 SCC 710, where the appointment of the concerned persons, i.e., one Ramesh Bishnoi was cancelled on the ground that a criminal case had been lodged against him under the provisions of Sections 354, 447 and 509 of the IPC. In this case as well, at the time when the alleged offence was committed, Ramesh Bishnoi was well below eighteen years of age.

Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Md Parvej Alam vs Union Of India & Ors. on 23 February, 2024

15. We may, in this regard, also refer to Union of India & Ors. vs. Ramesh Bishnoi: (2019) 19 SCC 710. In that case, the petitioner was appointed to the post of sub-Inspector in Central Industrial Security Force and his appointment was canceled on the ground that he was involved in a criminal case. Undoubtedly, in the aforesaid case, the petitioner had mentioned about the fact that an FIR has been registered against him and he also mentioned that in such case, he had already been acquitted. However, the respondents therein found him unsuitable for the reason that a criminal case was alleged against him in the past and, therefore, his appointment was cancelled. The Supreme Court noted that at the time of the alleged commission of offence, the petitioner therein was minor. It also noted that even if the allegations were found to be true, the petitioner could not have been deprived of getting a job as the offence had been committed by him when he was juvenile. It was observed that thrust of the legislation, i.e., the J.J. Act was to see that even if a juvenile is convicted, the same should be obliterated so that there is no stigma with regard to any crime committed by any such person as juvenile.

Delhi High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - S Sachdeva - Full Document

1 2 3 4 Next