Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.44 seconds)
Sagi T.M vs The Mahatma Gandhi University on 4 January, 2005 cites

Director Of School Education Madras And ... vs O. Karuppa Thevan on 31 January, 1994

In the facts and circumstances, this Court cannot persuade itself to accept that either Ext.P5 or Ext.P8 is W.P.(C) No. 33342/014 : 20 : legally sustainable, containing reasons indicating any administrative exigencies not brooking any delay even up to March, 2015, thus transcending the ratio of Karuppa Thevan (supra). This Court, therefore, sets aside both Exts.P5 and P8, thereby permitting the petitioner to continue in the present place of posting until the end of the academic year. It is, however, made clear that, at the end of the present academic years, the respondent University is at liberty to exercise its administrative powers concerning the transfer of the petitioner to whichever place it deems fit.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 256 - P B Sawant - Full Document

Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr vs The Chiief Election Commissioner, New ... on 2 December, 1977

15. As a corollary, we may have to consider whether W.P.(C) No. 33342/014 : 10 : undisclosed reasons, or reasons which have collaterally been brought forth can have any impact on the adjudication of an administrative action. The proposition of law in this regard, as has been laid down by a Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohinder Singh Gill (supra), stands undisturbed to this day. It is instructive to refer to the observation of the Constitution Bench, which is as follows:
Supreme Court of India Cites 56 - Cited by 4221 - V R Iyer - Full Document

U.P. Avas Evam Vikash Parishad And Ors. vs Dr. N.V. Rajgopalan Acharya And Ors. on 19 December, 1988

9. The learned Standing Counsel on the issue of undesirability of judicial interference in the matters of transfer has placed reliance on State of U.P. v. Dr. V.N. Prasad3, N.K. Singh v. Union of India & others4, Chief General Manager v. Rajendra Ch. Bhattacharjee5, K. Prasanna v. Director of Medical Education6 and also K. Sajeevan v. State of Kerala7.
Allahabad High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 13 - Full Document

M/S S.J.S. Business Enterprises (P) Ltd vs State Of Bihar And Ors on 17 March, 2004

12. To begin with, I may initially deal with the charge of suppression of material fact on the petitioner's part while approaching this Court. The learned Standing Counsel has contended that, on an earlier occasion, the petitioner faced certain allegations as contained in Ext.R1(b), which compelled the respondent University to constitute an enquiry committee to go into the said allegations. Aggrieved by the action proposed to be taken on the basis of Ext.R1(b), the petitioner filed W.P.(C) No. 7376 of 2013 and on 15.03.2013 got stayed all further proceedings pursuant to Ext.R1(a). The question is whether non- disclosure of the information amounts to any suppression of material facts. In other words, if the information concerning the pending proceedings in W.P.(C) No. 736 of 2013 had been revealed before this Court in the present W.P.(C) No. 33342/014 : 8 : writ petition, would the outcome have been in any manner different? On this issue, we need not look far, inasmuch as the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.J.S. Business Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. State of Bihar8 has elaborately dealt with the aspect of suppression of material facts. Their Lordships have held that the suppressed fact must be a material one in the sense that had it not been suppressed it would have had an effect on the merits of the case. It must be a matter which was material for the consideration of the court, whatever view the court may have taken.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 326 - R Pal - Full Document

Commissioner Of Police, Bombay vs Gordhandas Bhanji on 23 November, 1951

"8. The second equally relevant matter is that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out. We may here draw attention to the observations of Bose, J. in Gordhandas Bhanji [Commr. of Police, Bombay v. Gordhandas Bhanji, AIR 1952 SC 16] :
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 973 - V Bose - Full Document

K.R.Sajeevan @ K.R.Sajeev vs State Of Kerala on 16 March, 1984

In K. Sajeevan (supra), a learned single Judge of this Court has distinguished the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Karuppa Thevan (supra) by holding that once the transfer is effected with a view to improving the performance of any particular administrative division, more particularly in the face of deficiency of staff, the aspect of mid-academic year transfer should not come in the way.
Kerala High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1