Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.19 seconds)
Pratapbhai Mahdevbhai Khandra vs Gujarat Gaun Seva Pasandgi Mandal on 7 March, 2014 cites

Malavkumar Arunbhai Patel vs Sardar Patel University And 2 Ors. on 3 November, 2006

In  Malavkumar   Arunbhai   Patel   v.   Sardar   University   And   Others­2007(1)   GLR   413,   this  Court, after considering various judgments of the  Supreme Court, has held as below:­ "22. The provisions of Section 23(xxxii) of the   Act   make   it   clear   that   the   Syndicate   was   fully   empowered   to   constitute   the   "Unfair   Means  Committee".   Therefore,   the   ground   taken   by   the  petitioner that the Committee, being contrary to   the Ordinance of the University, had no power to   inflict   the   punishment   upon   the   petitioner   and   that the proceedings should be declared null and   void is not correct and is not accepted.
Gujarat High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 16 - A Kumari - Full Document

Siddharth Mohanlal Sharma vs South Gujarat University on 23 October, 1981

6. It is submitted by the learned advocate for the  petitioner that the petitioner was not found copying  or cheating by any person during the examination. The  respondent­Board has arrived at a conclusion that the  petitioner has copied from another candidate, solely  on   the   basis   of   conjectures   as   the   answers   of   the  petitioner are purportedly similar to the answers of  the   other   candidate,   namely,   Khakhkhar   Prashantkumar  Hashmukhlal.   It   is   submitted   that   the   evidence   of  similarity of answersheets is a weak type of evidence,  as has been held in the judgment of the Division Bench  of this Court in Siddharth Mohanlal Sharma Vs. South  Gujarat University, reported in 1982 GLH 648. 6.1 It is further submitted that the decision of the  respondent­Board   does   not   contain   any   reasons,  Page 5 of 21 C/SCA/12067/2013 JUDGMENT inasmuch   as   it   has   not   been   disclosed   whether   the  petitioner was sitting near the candidate from whom he  has purportedly copied, or not. The sitting position  of the candidates has not been disclosed, therefore,  it cannot be assumed that it is a case of copying.  6.2 It is contended that, in fact, no case of copying  or cheating has occurred during the entire duration of  the   examination.   Moreover,   before   arriving   at   the  impugned decision, the petitioner has not been granted  an opportunity of hearing, therefore, the principles  of   natural   justice   have   been   violated   by   the  respondent­Board.   The   decision   to   disqualify   the  petitioner would have an adverse effect on his career.
Gujarat High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 30 - Full Document

A. K. Kraipak & Ors. Etc vs Union Of India & Ors on 29 April, 1969

25. Further in Kumaon Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd. v.   Girja Shankar Pant, reported in (2001)1 SCC 182,  the Supreme Court has held as under in paragraphs  1 and 2 of the reported judgment:­ "Since   the   decision   of   this   Court   in   Kraipak's  case (A. K. Kraipak v. Union of India) one golden  rule that stands firmly established is that the   doctrine of natural justice is not only to secure  justice   but   to   prevent   miscarriage   of   justice.  What,  however,  does  this  doctrine  exactly  mean?
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 1426 - Full Document

The Keshav Mills Company Ltd. & Anr vs Union Of India And Ors on 8 December, 1972

As a matter of fact   this Court in the case of Keshav Mills Co. Ltd.   v. Union of India upon reliance on the attributes  of   the   doctrine   as   above   stated   as   below  (SCCp.387,para 8) "8. The second question, however, as to what are   the   principles   of   natural   justice   that   should   regulate an administrative act or order is a much  more difficult one to answer. We do not think it   either feasible or even desirable to lay down any  fixed or rigorous yardstick in this manner. The   concept of natural justice cannot be put into a   strait­jacket.  It  is  futile,   therefore,  to  look  for  definitions  or  standards   of  natural  justice  from various decisions and then try to apply them  to   the   facts   of   any   given   case.  The   only  essential point that has to be kept in mind in   all   cases   is   that   the   person   concerned   should   have  a  reasonable  opportunity  of  presenting   his    case   and   that   the  administrative      Authority    concerned   should   act   fairly,   impartially   and   reasonably.   Where   administrative   officers   are  concerned,   the   duty   is   not   so   much   to   act   judicially as to act fairly.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 113 - 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 quasi­judicial 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   para­66   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

Kumaon Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd vs Girja Shankar Pant & Ors on 18 October, 2000

25. Further in Kumaon Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd. v.   Girja Shankar Pant, reported in (2001)1 SCC 182,  the Supreme Court has held as under in paragraphs  1 and 2 of the reported judgment:­ "Since   the   decision   of   this   Court   in   Kraipak's  case (A. K. Kraipak v. Union of India) one golden  rule that stands firmly established is that the   doctrine of natural justice is not only to secure  justice   but   to   prevent   miscarriage   of   justice.  What,  however,  does  this  doctrine  exactly  mean?
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 410 - U C Banerjee - Full Document
1