Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 22 (0.42 seconds)
Islamic Academy Of Education And ... vs State Of Karnataka And Others on 14 August, 2003 cites

St. Stephen'S College vs University Of Delhi on 6 December, 1991

"3. The hearing of these cases has had a chequered history. Writ Petition No. 350 of 1993 filed by the Islamic Academy of Education and connected petitions were placed before a Bench of five Judges. As the Bench was prima facie of the opinion that Article 30 did not clothe a minority educational institution with the power to adopt its own method of selection and the correctness of the decision of this Court in St Stephens College v. University of Delhi was doubted, it was directed that the questions that arose should be authoritatively answered by a larger Bench. These cases were then placed before a bench of seven Judges. The questions framed were recast and on 6-2-1997, the Court directed that the matter be placed before a Bench of at least eleven Judges, as it was felt that in view of the Forty-second Amendment to the Constitution, whereby "education" had been included in Entry 25 of List III of Seventh Schedule, the question of who would be regarded as a "minority" was required to be considered because the earlier case-law related to the pre-amendment era, when education was only in the State List..............."
Supreme Court of India Cites 22 - Cited by 272 - Full Document

Unni Krishnan, J.P. And Ors. Etc. Etc vs State Of Andhra Pradesh And Ors. Etc. Etc on 4 February, 1993

"38. The scheme in Unni Kriahnan's case has the effect of nationalising education in respect of important features, viz., the right of a private unaided institution to give admission and to fix the fee. By framing this scheme, which has led to the State Governments legislating in conformity with the scheme the private institutions are indistinguishable from the government institutions; curtailing all the essential features of the right of administration of a private unaided educational institution can neither be called fair nor reasonable. Even in the decision in Unni Krishnan's case, it has been observed by Jeevan Reddy, J., at page 749, para 194, as follows:
Supreme Court of India Cites 153 - Cited by 957 - L M Sharma - Full Document

T.M.A.Pai Foundation & Ors vs State Of Karnataka & Ors on 31 October, 2002

208. Most of the petitioners/applicants before us are unaided professional educational institutions (both minority and non-minority). On behalf of the petitioners/applicant it was submitted that the answers given to the questions, as set out at the end of the majority Judgment, lay down the true ratio of the Judgment It was submitted mat any observation made in the body of the judgment had to be read in the context of the answers given. We are unable to accept this submission. The answers to the questions, in the majority Judgment in Pai's case, are merely a brief summation of the ratio laid down in the Judgment. The ratio decidendi of a Judgment has to be found out only on reading the entire Judgment. In fact the ratio of the judgment is what is set out in the judgment itself. The answer to the question would necessarily have to be read in the context of what is set out in the judgment and not in isolation. In case of any doubt as regards any observations, reasons and principles, the other part of the judgment has to be looked into. By reading a line here and there from, the judgment, one cannot find out the entire ratio decidendi of the judgment. We, therefore, while giving our clarifications, are deposed to look into other parts of the Judgment other than those portions which may be relied upon.
Supreme Court of India Cites 123 - Cited by 914 - Full Document

State Of Uttar Pradesh & Anr vs Janki Saran Kailash Chandra & Anr on 23 April, 1973

"As often enough pointed out by us, words and expressions used in a judgment are not to be construed in the same manner as statutes or as words and expressions defined in statutes. We do not have any doubt that when the words "adjudication of the merits of the controversy in the suit" were used by this Court in State of U.P. v. Janki Saran Kailash Chandra , the words were not used to take in every adjudication which brought to an end the proceeding before the court in whatever manner but were meant to cover only such adjudication as touched upon the real dispute between the parties which gave rise to the action. Objections to adjudication of the disputes between the parties, on whatever ground are in truth not aids to the progress of the suit but hurdles to such progress. Adjudication of such objections cannot be termed as adjudication of the merits of the controversy in the suit. As we said earlier, a broad view has to be taken of the principles involved and narrow and technical interpretation which tends to defeat the object of the legislation must be avoided."
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 98 - A Alagiriswami - Full Document
1   2 3 Next