Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 30 (0.33 seconds)
Shilpa Vishnu Thakur vs State Of Maharashtra Through Its on 7 May, 2009 cites

State Of Maharashtra & Ors vs Mana Adim Jamat Mandal on 8 March, 2006

29. The second conceptual issue which is distinct from the first is the question as to whether a particular applicant is able to establish a claim that he or she belongs to a tribe which has been designated in the Scheduled Tribes Order. This is a matter which is to be determined on the basis of all the available evidence. The burden to establish that the individual belongs to a Scheduled Tribe ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:35:08 ::: 48 is on that person, in view of the provisions of Section 8 of the said Act. The purpose of adducing evidence in such a case is not to include or exclude from the entries contained in the Scheduled Tribes Order, 1950. The object and purpose is to establish as to whether an individual who claims to belong to a Scheduled Tribe does or does not belong to that tribe. The application of the affinity test for this purpose is not prohibited. Neither the Judgment in Thandan' s case (supra) nor the Judgments in Milind Katware' s case (supra) or Mana Adim (supra) prohibit an inquiry into the question as to whether an applicant in fact belongs to a Scheduled Tribe. In fact, such an inquiry is a basic postulate before the benefits of reservation can be granted to an applicant who claims to belong to a Scheduled Tribe.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 99 - H K Sema - Full Document

Palghat Jilla Thandan Samudhaya ... vs State Of Kerala (Bharucha, J.) on 3 December, 1993

The Court held that merely because the surname of the applicant tallied with the name of the tribe which finds mention in one or the other entries of the Schedule appended to the Order, this could not be treated as sacrosanct. The High Court was held to be not justified in observing that no inquiry in relation to the correctness of the certificate could be made by the Committee. The Supreme Court held that the observations of this Court were not only contrary to the Judgments of the Supreme Court but also fell short of ground realities. Both the Judgments in Palghat Jilla Thandan (supra) and Milind Katware' s case (supra) were cited before the Supreme Court in support of the submission that an inquiry into the tribal status of the applicant was prohibited. The Court noted that Palghat Jilla Thandan did not deal with a case where a certificate had been granted wrongly to an applicant, though he was not entitled thereto.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 120 - S P Bharucha - Full Document

Pandurang Rangnath Chavan vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 9 June, 1998

Reliance was placed by the Petitioners on the Judgment of a Division Bench 19 2004(1) Mh.L.J. 177 20 (2007)1 SCC 80 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:35:09 ::: 67 in Pandurang Rangnath Chavan v. State of Maharashtra and others.21 In Pandurang Rangnath Chavan' s case (supra), the Division Bench made a reference to the legislative history underlying the designation of Thakur as a Scheduled Tribe.
Bombay High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 14 - S Radhakrishnan - Full Document
1   2 3 Next