Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.23 seconds)
Sagar Ravindra Suryawanshi vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 27 February, 2019 cites

Shilpa Vishnu Thakur vs State Of Maharashtra Through Its on 7 May, 2009

In our view, however, the respondent Tribe Scrutiny Committee is not prohibited from applying the test of original place of residence as one of the factors to be considered in arriving at a decision of validation of the claim of the claimant in view of the clear pronouncement of law in Full Bench decision of this Court in Shilpa Vishnu Thakur Vs. State of Maharashtra & others (supra)"
Bombay High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 82 - D Y Chandrachud - Full Document

Fatehsinh Mohansinh Chauhan, ... vs Union Territory Of Dadra And Nagar ... on 21 February, 2003

21. The case of Amruta Vijay More (supra), relied on behalf of the petitioner, is distinguishable on facts for the reason that in that case, the claim of the appellant was rejected by the Scrutiny Committee solely on the ground of affinity test. The High Court merely ::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2019 05:15:19 ::: 21 wp4965-2014 dittoed the observations made by the Scrutiny Committee.
Bombay High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 29 - S K Shah - Full Document

Raju Ramsing Vasave vs Mahesh Deorao Bhivapurkar & Ors on 29 August, 2008

19. Even in the case of Raju Ramsing Vasave (supra), relied on by the petitioner, the Apex Court has made it clear that if it is found that in granting a certificate in favour of member of a family vital evidence had been ignored, it would be open to the Committee to arrive at a different finding. Thus, because the caste certificate of Dhiraj Gorakh Suryawanshi is validated by the Scrutiny Committee, Nashik, the Scrutiny Committee at Nandurbar is not bound to validate the caste certificate issued in favour of the petitioner. The validity certificate is issued in favour of Dhiraj Gorakh Suryawanshi carries only persuasive importance and not more. Otherwise also, it cannot be ignored that though petitioner heavily relied ::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2019 05:15:19 ::: 20 wp4965-2014 on validity certificate issued in favour of Dhiraj Suryawanshi, the detailed order passed by the Scrutiny Committee, Nasik is not placed on record by the petitioner to show that speaking order was passed by the said Scrutiny Committee, after considering every relevant material placed on record and after its full satisfaction. Therefore, only on the basis of validity certificate issued in favour of Dhiraj Suryawanshi, thereby claim of the petitioner cannot be validated, when it is not supported by affinity test and other material placed on record.
Supreme Court of India Cites 29 - Cited by 260 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Anand vs Committee For S.&V. Of Tribe Claims &Ors on 8 November, 2011

In the case of Anand Vs. Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims and others (supra), the Apex Court laid down certain broad parameters, which ::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2019 05:15:19 ::: 15 wp4965-2014 are to be kept in view while dealing with the caste claim. While dealing with documentary evidence, greater reliance may be placed on pre-Independence documents. In the event of a doubt on the credibility of a document, its veracity has to be tested on the basis of oral evidence, for which an opportunity has to be afforded to the applicant. While applying the affinity test, which focuses on the ethnological connections with the Scheduled Tribe, a cautious approach has to be adopted. The affinity test may be used to corroborate the documentary evidence and should not be the sole criteria to reject the claim. In this case, the Apex Court has also made it clear that the burden of proving the caste claim is upon the applicant and he has to produce all the requisite documents in support of his claim. The Scrutiny Committee can only scrutinize the documents and material produced by the applicant. In case the material produced by the applicant does not prove his claim, the Scrutiny Committee cannot gather the evidence on its own to prove or disprove his caste.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 341 - D K Jain - Full Document

Anandkumar N. Patil, Meher Pesi ... vs Maharashtra University Of Health ... on 25 February, 2003

In the case of Anand Vs. Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims and others (supra), the Apex Court laid down certain broad parameters, which ::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2019 05:15:19 ::: 15 wp4965-2014 are to be kept in view while dealing with the caste claim. While dealing with documentary evidence, greater reliance may be placed on pre-Independence documents. In the event of a doubt on the credibility of a document, its veracity has to be tested on the basis of oral evidence, for which an opportunity has to be afforded to the applicant. While applying the affinity test, which focuses on the ethnological connections with the Scheduled Tribe, a cautious approach has to be adopted. The affinity test may be used to corroborate the documentary evidence and should not be the sole criteria to reject the claim. In this case, the Apex Court has also made it clear that the burden of proving the caste claim is upon the applicant and he has to produce all the requisite documents in support of his claim. The Scrutiny Committee can only scrutinize the documents and material produced by the applicant. In case the material produced by the applicant does not prove his claim, the Scrutiny Committee cannot gather the evidence on its own to prove or disprove his caste.
Bombay High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 82 - D Y Chandrachud - Full Document
1   2 Next