Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (0.28 seconds)
Patel vs Gujarat on 17 October, 2011 cites

Haryana Financial Corporation & Anr vs Kailash Chandra Ahuja on 8 July, 2008

(iii) Haryana Financial Corporation And Another v. Kailash Chandra Ahuja - (2008)9 SCC 31 (B) Though admittedly, the Examiner's Report was not supplied to the petitioners, however, no demand for the same was made by them. The petitioners have stated that they have not indulged in copying, which means that they were very much aware of the allegations against them, on the basis of which the proceedings were initiated. Though a copy of the actual decision taken by the Examination Committee has not have been supplied to the petitioners, it has been conveyed to them, and they were aware of the same. In any case, the actual decision is not required to be communicated to the petitioners and it is sufficient that they have been informed regarding the same, therefore, the petitioners have not been prejudiced in any manner.
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 227 - C K Thakker - Full Document

Managing Director Ecil Hyderabad Etc. ... vs B. Karunakar Etc. Etc on 1 October, 1993

The said observations made in the context of the ratio in the case of ECIL v. B.Karunakar (supra), cannot be taken to mean that a legal submission regarding violation of the principles of natural justice and resultant prejudice caused, cannot be taken into consideration by the Court, as it has not been specifically pleaded in the petition, even though oral submissions in this regard have been made during the course of the hearing. It is a settled position of law that a legal ground can be raised at any time during the proceedings, though it may not be specifically pleaded.
Supreme Court of India Cites 64 - Cited by 2043 - Full Document

Dr. J. P. Kulshreshtha And Ors vs Chancellor, Allahabad University, Raj ... on 30 April, 1980

(v) Dr.J.P.Kulshrestha And Others v. Chancellor, Allahabad University And Others - (1980)3 SCC 418 (D) That cases of malpractice in examinations should be dealt with iron hands, so as to maintain educational standards. The penalty prescribed by the respondent-University cannot be said to be disproportionate, and no leniency can be shown on misplaced sympathy. On the ground of proportionality, the following judgments have been referred to by the learned advocate for the respondent-University:
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 253 - V R Iyer - Full Document

Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr vs The Chiief Election Commissioner, New ... on 2 December, 1977

26. It is now an accepted proposition of law that any statutory body which is entrusted by statute with discretion, must act fairly. It does not matter whether its functions are described as judicial or quasi-judicial on the one hand, or as administrative on the other. Even an administrative order, which involves civil consequences must be made consistently with the rules of natural justice. Although the expression 'civil consequences' has not been defined anywhere, the observation made in Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner, (1978) 1 SCC 405 at para-66 on page 440 is relevant in this context and reads as below:
Supreme Court of India Cites 56 - Cited by 4221 - V R Iyer - Full Document
1   2 Next