Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.30 seconds)
Dr. Tara Kant Jha And Dr. Chintamani Jha vs State Of Bihar And Ors. on 7 July, 1989 cites

State Of M.P. And Anr vs Kumari Nivedita Jain And Ors on 22 September, 1981

In State of Madhya Pradesh v. Kumari Nivedita Jain and Ors. , it has been held that Regulation 2 of the Council u merely recommendary in nature. It was further held in that decision that though the question of suitability into the medical curriculam may come within the power and jurisdiction of the Council, the question of selection of candidates to the medical course does not come within the purview of the council.
Supreme Court of India Cites 29 - Cited by 187 - A N Sen - Full Document

State Of Bihar vs Simranjit Singh on 11 November, 1986

54. Suffice it to say that a consent order although is binding upon the parties and operates as an estoppel, the same being in nature of an agreement entered into by and between the two parties to the Us cannot be held to be binding upon others who are not parties thereto. Such a consent order does not operate as res judicata. The writ petitioners cannot take any benefit of the said consent order so far as interpretation of Section 6 of the said Act is concerned as against the private respondents who were not parties there to and in this view of the matter it is open to the State as also to the private respondents to contend that the same cannot be implemented. It is further well known that an erroneous admission in law is not binding and may be challenged in a Superior Court. Reference in this connection may be made to State of Bihar v. Simranjit Singh Mann and Ors. reported in 1987 Bihar Law Judgments 362.
Patna High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 2 - N P Singh - Full Document
1   2 Next