Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.26 seconds)The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
High Court Of Judicature At Bombay Throu ... vs Shashikant S, Patil And Anr on 28 October, 1999
Similarly the Apex Court in High Court of Judicature At Bombay through its Registrar Vs. Shashikant S. Patil and another (2000) 1 SCC 416 has held thus:
State Of Andhra Pradesh vs S. Sree Rama Rao on 10 April, 1963
In State of Andhra Pradesh v. S. Sree Rama Rao , this Court has stated so and further observed thus:
B.C. Chaturvedi vs Union Of India And Ors on 1 November, 1995
The above position has been reiterated by this Court in subsequent decisions. One of them is B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India .
A. N. D'Silva vs Union Of India on 6 December, 1961
Legal position on that score has been stated by this Court in A.N. D' Sitva v. Union of India [1962] Suppl. 1 SCR 968, that neither the findings of the Inquiry Officer nor his recommendations are binding on the punishing authority.
Union Of India vs H. C. Goel on 30 August, 1963
The aforesaid position was settled by a Constitution Bench of this Court way back in 1963, Union of India v. H.C. Gael. . The Bench held that "the Government may agree with the report or may differ, either wholly or partially, from the conclusion recorded in the report." Their Lordships laid down the following principle:
Section 15 in The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
State Of Tamil Nadu vs Thiru K.V.Perumal & Ors on 16 July, 1996
(14) Hon'ble Apex Court in State of T.N. Vs. Thiru K.V. Perumal and others (1996) 5 Supreme Court Cases 474, has held that it is not the province of Tribunal to go into the truth or otherwise of charges and that Tribunal is not appellate authority over the departmental authority in disciplinary proceedings. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held thus: