Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.26 seconds)State Of Punjab vs Kishan Dass on 19 January, 1971
It is unfortunate that a person like the petitioner, who was a Reader of Madurai Kamaraj University at the relevant time, has made such irresponsible and un-believable statements. It is clear that after realising his mistake, the petitioner has submitted his explanation accepting his guilt on 14.12.1992 and also made a similar statement on 17.12.1992. In such a circumstance, the contention that there was no proper enquiry cannot be accepted. No doubt Mr. N.S. Sivam, learned Counsel for the petitioner, cited several decisions, namely,
(1)Spi Officer, K.C.C. Bank Ltd, v. Dy. Commissioner of Labour and Anr. (1998)2 L.L.J. 1057; (2) State of Punjab v. Kishan Das ;(3)Jagdish Prasad v. State of M.P. A.I.R. 1961 SC. 1070; (4) B. Mishra v. Orissa High Court A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 1899; (5) Bhagat Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh ; (6) Sawai Singh v. State of Rajasthan ; (7) State of U.P. v. Ram Naresh ; (8) Krishna Kumar v. Divnl Asst. E. E. Central Rly .
Baradakanta Mishra vs The Registrar Of Orissa High Court & Anr on 19 November, 1973
It is unfortunate that a person like the petitioner, who was a Reader of Madurai Kamaraj University at the relevant time, has made such irresponsible and un-believable statements. It is clear that after realising his mistake, the petitioner has submitted his explanation accepting his guilt on 14.12.1992 and also made a similar statement on 17.12.1992. In such a circumstance, the contention that there was no proper enquiry cannot be accepted. No doubt Mr. N.S. Sivam, learned Counsel for the petitioner, cited several decisions, namely,
(1)Spi Officer, K.C.C. Bank Ltd, v. Dy. Commissioner of Labour and Anr. (1998)2 L.L.J. 1057; (2) State of Punjab v. Kishan Das ;(3)Jagdish Prasad v. State of M.P. A.I.R. 1961 SC. 1070; (4) B. Mishra v. Orissa High Court A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 1899; (5) Bhagat Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh ; (6) Sawai Singh v. State of Rajasthan ; (7) State of U.P. v. Ram Naresh ; (8) Krishna Kumar v. Divnl Asst. E. E. Central Rly .
Bhagat Ram vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Ors. on 24 January, 1983
It is unfortunate that a person like the petitioner, who was a Reader of Madurai Kamaraj University at the relevant time, has made such irresponsible and un-believable statements. It is clear that after realising his mistake, the petitioner has submitted his explanation accepting his guilt on 14.12.1992 and also made a similar statement on 17.12.1992. In such a circumstance, the contention that there was no proper enquiry cannot be accepted. No doubt Mr. N.S. Sivam, learned Counsel for the petitioner, cited several decisions, namely,
(1)Spi Officer, K.C.C. Bank Ltd, v. Dy. Commissioner of Labour and Anr. (1998)2 L.L.J. 1057; (2) State of Punjab v. Kishan Das ;(3)Jagdish Prasad v. State of M.P. A.I.R. 1961 SC. 1070; (4) B. Mishra v. Orissa High Court A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 1899; (5) Bhagat Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh ; (6) Sawai Singh v. State of Rajasthan ; (7) State of U.P. v. Ram Naresh ; (8) Krishna Kumar v. Divnl Asst. E. E. Central Rly .
Sawai Singh vs State Of Rajasthan on 2 May, 1986
It is unfortunate that a person like the petitioner, who was a Reader of Madurai Kamaraj University at the relevant time, has made such irresponsible and un-believable statements. It is clear that after realising his mistake, the petitioner has submitted his explanation accepting his guilt on 14.12.1992 and also made a similar statement on 17.12.1992. In such a circumstance, the contention that there was no proper enquiry cannot be accepted. No doubt Mr. N.S. Sivam, learned Counsel for the petitioner, cited several decisions, namely,
(1)Spi Officer, K.C.C. Bank Ltd, v. Dy. Commissioner of Labour and Anr. (1998)2 L.L.J. 1057; (2) State of Punjab v. Kishan Das ;(3)Jagdish Prasad v. State of M.P. A.I.R. 1961 SC. 1070; (4) B. Mishra v. Orissa High Court A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 1899; (5) Bhagat Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh ; (6) Sawai Singh v. State of Rajasthan ; (7) State of U.P. v. Ram Naresh ; (8) Krishna Kumar v. Divnl Asst. E. E. Central Rly .
The State Of U.P. And Ors. vs Ram Naresh Lal on 13 March, 1970
It is unfortunate that a person like the petitioner, who was a Reader of Madurai Kamaraj University at the relevant time, has made such irresponsible and un-believable statements. It is clear that after realising his mistake, the petitioner has submitted his explanation accepting his guilt on 14.12.1992 and also made a similar statement on 17.12.1992. In such a circumstance, the contention that there was no proper enquiry cannot be accepted. No doubt Mr. N.S. Sivam, learned Counsel for the petitioner, cited several decisions, namely,
(1)Spi Officer, K.C.C. Bank Ltd, v. Dy. Commissioner of Labour and Anr. (1998)2 L.L.J. 1057; (2) State of Punjab v. Kishan Das ;(3)Jagdish Prasad v. State of M.P. A.I.R. 1961 SC. 1070; (4) B. Mishra v. Orissa High Court A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 1899; (5) Bhagat Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh ; (6) Sawai Singh v. State of Rajasthan ; (7) State of U.P. v. Ram Naresh ; (8) Krishna Kumar v. Divnl Asst. E. E. Central Rly .
G. Sarana vs University Of Lucknow & Ors on 28 July, 1976
13. Mr. S. Jayaraman, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents, has very much relied on the following observation of Their Lordships in the case of G. Sarana v. Lucknow University : Para 15.
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Madurai-Kamaraj University Act, 1965
S. Muthusaravanan vs Deputy Registrar, Co-Operative ... on 10 March, 1999
14. Even though it is stated that the report of the Sub-committee was not furnished to the petitioner passing the impugned order of demotion, I am of the view that in the light of the proceedings before the Sub-Committee as well as his explanation and statement accepting his guilt, no prejudice was caused to him by not furnishing the report. The decision of mine in S. Muthusaravanan v. Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies (Housing) Special Officer , also supports the above view.
1