Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 237 (1.03 seconds)
Documents citing Mrs. Asha Kaul And Anr. Etc vs State Of Jammu And Kashmir And Ors on 15 April, 1993

Asha vs . State on 5 September, 2011

under any pretence such as signing, dancing fortune telling, performing or offering any article for sale. However, one important fact which is to be noted in the present case is that the appellant was giving flags to the people. These flags which have been placed along with the kalandra, must have cost something to the appellant. If she was selling something some article after spending something from her own pocket then it CA No. 144/09 4/5 Asha Vs. State cannot be considered as a begging. Though such selling of articles may not be permissible under some other law. In the kalandra it is stated that by giving the flags the appellant was begging. The facts, therefore, disclose nothing else except that the appellant was selling flags to the passersby on the bus stand and that in my considered view will not fall in the definition of "begging" as per section 2 (I) (i) of the Act. The impugned order has not considered these aspects of the matter, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. The appellant stands acquitted. Surety of the appellant stands discharged. The Appeal stands allowed. Trial Court Record be sent back to the Trial Court along with copy of detailed judgment. Appeal file be consigned to Record Room.
Delhi District Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Kanubhai Ramsingbhai Hathila vs State Of Gujarat on 18 January, 2021

"14. Selectees cannot claim the appointment as a matter of right. Mere inclusion of candidate's name in the list does not confer any right to be selected, even if some of the vacancies remained unfilled and the candidates concerned cannot claim that they have been given a hostile discrimination. (See Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India [(1991) 3 SCC 47 : 1991 SCC (L&S) 800 : (1991) 17 ATC 95 : AIR 1991 SC 1612] ; Asha Kaul v. State of J&K [(1993) 2 SCC 573 : 1993 SCC (L&S) 637 : (1993) 24 ATC 576] ; Union of India v. S.S. Uppal [(1996) 2 SCC 168 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 438 : (1996) 32 ATC 668 : AIR 1996 SC 2340] ; Hanuman Prasad v. Union of India [(1996) 10 SCC 742 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 364] ; Bihar Public Service Commission v. State of Bihar [(1997) 3 SCC 198 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 775 : AIR 1997 SC 2280] ; Syndicate Bank v. Shankar Paul [(1997) 6 SCC 584 : AIR 1997 SC 3091] ; Vice-Chancellor, University of Allahabad v. Dr. Anand Prakash Mishra [(1997) 10 SCC 264 : 1997 SCC (L&S) Page 29 of 47 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 12 01:42:28 IST 2022 C/LPA/1496/2019 CAV JUDGMENT 1265] ; Punjab SEB v. Seema [1999 SCC (L&S) 629] ; All India SC & ST Employees' Assn. v. A. Arthur Jeen [(2001) 6 SCC 380 : AIR 2001 SC 1851] ; Vinodan T. v. University of Calicut [(2002) 4 SCC 726 : 2002 SCC (L&S) 606] ; S. Renuka v. State of A.P. [(2002) 5 SCC 195 : 2002 SCC (L&S) 689 : AIR 2002 SC 1523] and Batiarani Gramiya Bank v. Pallab Kumar [(2004) 9 SCC 100 : 2004 SCC (L&S) 715 : AIR 2003 SC 4248] .)
Gujarat High Court Cites 58 - Cited by 0 - V Nath - Full Document

Dhirendra Kumar Singh & Ors vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 19 September, 2016

In Asha Kaul vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir [(1993) 2 SCC 573] after noticing Shankarsan Dash case, the Supreme Court observed, that though mere inclusion in the select list does not confer upon the candidate any indefeasible right to appointment, but that is only one aspect of the matter. The other aspect is the obligation of the Government to fill up all the posts for which requisition was given and advertisement was made.
Patna High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 4 - S Pandey - Full Document

Pankaj Singh And Ors. vs State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Of ... on 23 May, 2023

(42) We have already examined the reasons given by the State for cancelling the selection in question and withdrawal of requisition and the reasons, as noticed above, are based on relevant factors, materials and documents. There is no dispute or quarrel to the legal principle that in a matter of cancellation of selection, the power of the employer, which in this case is the State, is not questionable. However, such power of cancellation of selection can be judicially reviewed on the touchstone of reasonableness. If we examine the facts of the present case in the light of the law laid down in the cases of Shankarsan Dash (supra), Asha Kaul (supra) and Amar Nath Singh (supra) what we find is that it cannot be said on any count that the order dated 25.07.2019 cancelling the selection in question and withdrawal of requisition was based on any irrelevant consideration or it suffered from the vice of mala fide or arbitrariness.
Allahabad High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Kanubhai Ramsingbhai Hathila vs State Of Gujarat on 18 January, 2021

"14. Selectees cannot claim the appointment as a matter of right. Mere inclusion of candidate's name in the list does not confer any right to be selected, even if some of the vacancies remained unfilled and the candidates concerned cannot claim that they have been given a hostile discrimination. (See Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India [(1991) 3 SCC 47 : 1991 SCC (L&S) 800 : (1991) 17 ATC 95 : AIR 1991 SC 1612] ; Asha Kaul v. State of J&K [(1993) 2 SCC 573 : 1993 SCC (L&S) 637 : (1993) 24 ATC 576] ; Union of India v. S.S. Uppal [(1996) 2 SCC 168 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 438 : (1996) 32 ATC 668 : AIR 1996 SC 2340] ; Hanuman Prasad v. Union of India [(1996) 10 SCC 742 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 364] ; Bihar Public Service Commission v. State of Bihar [(1997) 3 SCC 198 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 775 : AIR 1997 SC 2280] ; Syndicate Bank v. Shankar Paul [(1997) 6 SCC 584 : AIR 1997 SC 3091] ; Vice-Chancellor, University of Allahabad v. Dr. Anand Prakash Mishra [(1997) 10 SCC 264 : 1997 SCC (L&S) Page 29 of 47 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 21 20:47:52 IST 2021 C/LPA/1496/2019 CAV JUDGMENT 1265] ; Punjab SEB v. Seema [1999 SCC (L&S) 629] ; All India SC & ST Employees' Assn. v. A. Arthur Jeen [(2001) 6 SCC 380 : AIR 2001 SC 1851] ; Vinodan T. v. University of Calicut [(2002) 4 SCC 726 : 2002 SCC (L&S) 606] ; S. Renuka v. State of A.P. [(2002) 5 SCC 195 : 2002 SCC (L&S) 689 : AIR 2002 SC 1523] and Batiarani Gramiya Bank v. Pallab Kumar [(2004) 9 SCC 100 : 2004 SCC (L&S) 715 : AIR 2003 SC 4248] .)
Gujarat High Court Cites 58 - Cited by 0 - V Nath - Full Document

State Of Uttaranchal And Ors. vs Sidharth Srivastava And Ors. ... on 5 June, 2003

Mere non-reference or omission to mention of Section 78(4) in the order, does not take away its legal effect. The appellants have only elaborated the reasons to support the said order. It is not possible to agree that the appellants tried to justify the aforementioned order by subsequent fresh reasons. The High Court committed an error in holding that the reasons cited by the State Government of Uttaranchal in the order dated 29.8.2001 were not valid relying on the decision of this Court in Asha Kaul (Mrs.) and Anr. v. State of Jammu & Kashmir and Ors. [(1993) 2 SC 573], in the light of the facts of the present case and in view of what is stated above. This apart, in view of the discussion made above and having regard to clear constitutional and legal position that the selections made by UPPSC are not binding on the State of Uttaranchal on the basis of the facts that are not in dispute, the argument advanced on behalf of the respondents being devoid of merit is rejected.
Supreme Court of India Cites 29 - Cited by 40 - S V Patil - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next