Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 48 (0.58 seconds)
Documents citing The State Of Tamil Nadu & Ors vs A. Gurusamy on 17 February, 1997

G.Ramakrishnan vs The Zonal Manager on 7 April, 2003

13. Be that as it may, I find reasons in the submissions of both the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner is not at all aggrieved by the impugned proceedings of the fourth respondent dated 17.8.1999, more particularly in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU Vs. A.GURUSAMY, referred supra, held against his father. Hence, I do not see any reason or justification to quash the impugned proceedings dated 17.8.1999, except to permit the petitioner to appear on the immediate next date of hearing, which shall be intimated to the petitioner by the fourth respondent, with all relevant records and documentary evidence, if he is so advised, based on which, the fourth respondent shall arrive at a preliminary finding. If the petitioner fails to produce satisfactory evidence that he belongs to Kattunayakan community, the matter shall be forwarded to the District Level Caste Scrutiny Committee, which shall hold an enquiry giving a fair and reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, and pass appropriate orders, on merits, within ninety days from the date of receipt of the preliminary report of the fourth respondent. A copy of the preliminary report of the fourth respondent shall also be furnished to the petitioner.
Madras High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - P D Premkumar - Full Document

Union Of India (Uoi) Rep. By The Chief ... vs The Registrar, Central Administrative ... on 14 February, 2001

Such bar, by implication, has been held to be the consequence of Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution by the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu v. Gurusamy. Moreover, when a judgment of the Supreme Court deals with the very question, which the High Court is required to consider, the High Court is bound to follow the law laid down by the Supreme Court and it is not open to the High Court to depart therefrom.
Madras High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - R J Babu - Full Document

State Of Tamil Nadu, Rep. By The District ... vs Durairaj And Another on 28 April, 2000

6. On the other hand, Mr. V. Radhakrishnan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would contend that judgment of the Supreme Court referred to above is not applicable to the facts of the present cases, since they are not seeking declaration to the fact that presidential notification is bad or their community is to be included in the List. He also contended that in the light of the factual findings rendered by both the Courts below based on acceptable oral and documentary evidence, interference by this Court under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure is not warranted and prayed for dismissal of both the second appeals.
Madras High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 6 - P Sathasivam - Full Document

K.S. Vijayalakshmi And Etc. Etc. vs Tahsildar, Palakkad And Ors. Etc. on 13 March, 2000

In State of T. N. v. A. Guruswamy's case (AIR 1997 SC 1199) (supra), it was held that principle of promissory estoppel is inapplicable. On cancellation of a wrong SC/ST certificate, the person concerned is not entitled to plead estoppel merely on the ground of having enjoyed the status under such a certificate for a long period. That would amount to protection of the fraud perpetrated and thereby defeat the Constitutional objective. In such cases, consequences have to follow. It is for the authorities to determine in what manner it shall be done. We express no opinion in that regard.
Kerala High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Mallela Venkata Rao And Others vs State Of Andhra Pradesh And Others on 18 November, 2000

Reliance was placed on Srish Kumar's case, , Palghat Jilla Samithi's case, , 1997 (5) ALT 295, Nityananda Sharma's case, , A. Chinnappa v. V. Venkatamuni, ), Stale of Tamil Nadu v. A. Gurusamy, , Bhaiya Lal's case, . Alternatively it was argued assuming that there is no specific power providing for a field of Legislation with respect to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes the residuary powers will confer jurisdiction on the Parliament alone.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 82 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

C.Raja vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 14 March, 2017

Again it was upheld by subsequent judgments of the Honourable Supreme Court in S.Swvigaradoss Vs. Zonal Manager, F.C.I. reported in 1996(1) CTC 257 and in the State of Tamilnadu and others Vs. A.Gurusamy reported in 1997 I CTC 564. Apart from that as there were diverse opinions' of judgments disposed by two Honourable Judges of this Court, the matter was referred to Full Bench of this court.
Madras High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - P Velmurugan - Full Document

Prakash vs State Of Kerala on 27 May, 2002

11. Ext. P7 has been admittedly prepared in gross violation of the above stated principles of law. The Scrutiny Committee did not give a fair opportunity to the petitioner to challenge the statements relied on by the Vigilance Officer. But the learned Special Government Pleader, relying on the decision of the Apex Court in State of Tamil Nadu v. A. Gurusamy, (1997) 3 SCC 542, submitted that the enquiry need not be in the form of trial of a suit. While dealing with the decision of the District Collector regarding caste status, the Apex Court said: "The District Collector does not decide it like a suit". But the said observation cannot be pressed into service in the light of the express words of the Supreme Court in "Kumari Madhuri Patil" (1994 (6) SCC 241). The directions therein, as stated earlier, speak of an opportunity to adduce evidence by both sides. It is also directed in the said decision: "The inquiry should be completed as expeditiously as possible preferably by day-to-day proceedings within such period not exceeding two months," If the enquiry is to be over by a single hearing, as was done in this case, there need not be any direction to hold the enquiry on a day-to-day basis, for a period of two months. Therefore, it cannot be said that the examination of witnesses by the Scrutiny Committee was not contemplated by the Supreme Court while issuing the directions in the abovesaid case. Therefore, the contention of the learned Special Government Pleader in this regard cannot be accepted. Therefore, I find that the Scrutiny Committee did not follow a fair procedure in accordance with the principles of natural justice. For this reason also Ext. P50 is vitiated.
Kerala High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - K N Nair - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next