Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.25 seconds)
Qurat-Ul-Ain (Age 30 Years) vs Union Territory Of J&K Through on 30 May, 2024 cites

Ramesh Chandra Shah & Ors vs Anil Joshi & Ors on 3 April, 2013

In Ramesh Chandra Shah and others v. Anil Joshi and others, (2013) 11 SCC 309, the Supreme Court has held that "by taking part in selection process with full knowledge that recruitment was being made under particular rules, the candidates had waived off their right to question advertisement or methodology adopted by recruiting agency for making selection and that learned Single Judge and Division Bench of the High Court committed grave error by entertaining grievance made by such candidates. A candidate who has participated in selection process is estopped and has acquiesced himself form questioning it thereafter".
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 434 - G S Singhvi - Full Document

G. Sarana vs University Of Lucknow & Ors on 28 July, 1976

In Dr. G. Sarana vs. University of Lucknow & Ors., (1976) 3 SCC 585, a similar question came for consideration before a three Judges Bench of this Court where the fact was that the petitioner had applied to the post of Professor of Athropology in the University of Lucknow. After having appeared before the Selection Committee but on his failure to get appointed, the petitioner rushed to the High Court pleading bias against him of the three experts in the Selection Committee consisting of five members. He also alleged doubt in the constitution of the Committee. Rejecting the contention, the Court held:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 411 - J Singh - Full Document

R.N. Gosain A vs Yashpal Dhir on 23 October, 1992

In R. N. Gosain v. Yashpal Dhir, reported in (1992) 4 SCC 683, the Supreme Court has opined that law does not permit a person to both approbate and reprobate. This principle is based on the doctrine of election which postulates that no party can accept and reject the same instrument and that 'a person cannot say at one time that a transaction is valid and thereby obtain some advantage, to 11 LPA No.116/2024 which he could only be entitled on the footing that it is valid, and then turn around and say it is void for the purpose of securing some other advantage.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 281 - S C Agrawal - Full Document
1   2 Next