Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.24 seconds)
Surendra Kumar Mehrotra vs The Secretary Board Of Technical ... on 29 January, 1965 cites

New Prakash Transport Co. Ltd vs New Suwarna Transport Co. Ltd on 30 September, 1956

(S) AIR 1957 SC 232 (supra) and AIR 1958 SC 398 (supra) that where no rules or regulations have been framed in regard to the matter in which the tribunal passes certain orders natural justice could only mean that the person accused should know the nature of the accusation made; secondly, that he should be given an opportunity to state his case, and thirdly, that the tribunal should act in good faith. In that case the petitioner had smuggled an additional answer hook in the examination and was rusticated for a period of two years for having adopted malpractice at the examination. There were six circumstances that were relied upon by the Board of Examiners in taking action against the petitioner and he was given an opportunity to explain those circumstances. The explanation was considered after those circumstances had been made known to the petitioner who was given an opportunity to state his case and the matter was decided against the petitioner. The decision was not challenged on the ground of bad faith. It was found to have been given in good faith. In the circumstances no interference was made with the order made by the Vice Chancellor.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 146 - Full Document

Nagendra Nath Bora & Another vs The Commissioner Of Hills Divisionand ... on 7 February, 1958

21. The next case referred to was that of Nagendra Nath Bora v. Commr. of Hills Division and Appeals, Assam, AIR 1958 SC 398, wherein it has been laid down, referring to the observations in the above case that the rules of natural justice vary with the varying constitution of statutory bodies and the rules prescribed by the Act under which they function; and the question whether or not any rules of natural justice have been contravened should be decided not under any pre-conceived notions but in the light of the statutory rules and provisions. It was further observed that simply because a case was viewed in a particular light which may not be acceptable to another independent tribunal is no ground for interference either under Article 226 or Article 227 of the Constitution.
Supreme Court of India Cites 21 - Cited by 746 - B P Sinha - Full Document

The Board Of High School & Inter-Mediate ... vs Bagleshwar Prasad & Others on 27 August, 1962

In Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U. P., Allahabad v. Bagleshwar Prasad, 1963 All LJ 676 (SC), it was held that educational institutions like the Universities or the Board of Education set up Enquiry Committees to deal with the problem posed by the adoption of unfair means by candidates, and normally it is within the jurisdiction of such domestic Tribunals to decide all relevant questions in the light of the evidence adduced before them. In the matter of the adoption of unfair means, direct evidence may sometimes be available, but cases may arise where direct evidence is not available and the question will have to be considered in the light of probabilities and circumstantial evidence. This problem which educational institutions have to face from time to time is a serious problem and unless there is jurisdiction to do so, courts should be slow to interfere with the decisions of domestic Tribunals appointed by educational bodies like the Universities. In dealing with the validity of the impunged orders passed by Universities under Article 226 the High Court is not sitting in appeal over the decision in question; its jurisdiction is limited and though it is true that if the impunged order is not supported by any evidence at all the High Court would be justified to quash that order. But the conclusion that the impunged order is not supported by any evidence must he reached after considering the question as to whether probabilities and circumstantial evidence do not justify the said conclusion. Enquiries held by domestic Tribunals in such cases must, no doubt, be fair and students against whom charges are framed must be given adequate opportunities to defend themselves, and in holding such enquiries, the Tribunals must scrupulously follow rules of natural justice; but it would not he reasonable to import into these enquiries all considerations which govern criminal trials in ordinary Courts of law. In that particular case no animus was suggested and no mala fides had been pleaded. The enquiry had been fair and the respondent had an opportunity of making his defence. In the circumstances it was held that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order passed against the respondent.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 110 - P B Gajendragadkar - Full Document
1