Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 31 (1.14 seconds)Article 32 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 8 November, 2012
27. I have also gone through the judgment rendered in the case of
Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan(supra) wherein the caste certificate
was issued to the appellant by the competent authority following due
procedure of law and the vigilance cell attached to the Scrutiny
Committee had also verified the said certificate and had found that the
appellant belonged to 'Bhil Tadvi' (Scheduled Tribe). After 9 years, the
respondent no. 5 of the said case filed a complaint before the Scrutiny
Committee for recalling the said caste validity certificate but the
Committee rejected the said complaint observing that it had no power to
recall or to review a caste validity certificate. However, the High Court set
aside the order of the Committee and remitted the matter for rehearing.
Pursuant to the direction of the High Court, the Committee examined the
matter wherein the appellant filed an application for recalling three
witnesses for cross-examination as also sought time of 30 days for filing
reply under Rule 12(8) of the Rules, 2003. Another application was also
filed by the applicant to call the records from the office of the Tahsildar
so as to ascertain the genuineness of the certificate impugned, however
none of the said applications was decided and thus the matter travelled
to the Supreme Court.
The Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. A ... vs Vexcel Upkram Private Limited Through ... on 17 November, 2022
In support of said argument, learned senior counsel puts reliance on a
judgment rendered by learned Division Bench of this Court in the case of
The Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. Vs. Vexcel Upkram Private
Limited (L.P.A No. 242 of 2022).
State Of Maharashtra & Ors vs Ravi Prakash Babulalsing Parmar & Anr on 31 October, 2006
In support of the said
contention, learned A.A.G.-III puts reliance on the judgment rendered by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra &
Others Vs. Ravi Prakash Babulalsing Parmar & Another reported in
(2007) 1 SCC 80.
Chandrabhan vs State Of Maharashtra . on 10 August, 2021
14. Learned A.A.G.-III also puts reliance on a judgment rendered by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chandrabhan v. State of
Maharashtra & Others reported in (2021) 9 SCC 804 wherein it has
been held thus:-
Kumari Madhuri Patil vs Addl. Commissioner on 2 September, 1994
69.2. Since the decision of this Court in [Madhuri Patil v. Commr.,
Tribal Development, (1994) 6 SCC 241 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 1349]
which was rendered on 2-9-1994, the regime which held the
field in pursuance of those directions envisaged a detailed
procedure for:
Lillykutty vs Scrutiny Committee, S.C. & S.T. & Others on 6 October, 2005
Placing reliance on a judgment rendered by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lillykutty Vs. Scrutiny
Committee, SC & ST & Others reported in (2005) 8 SCC 283,
learned A.A.G.-III also submits that the burden of proof is on the person
who claims the status of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe.
Pournima Suryakant Pawar vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 7 March, 2013
In Pournima Suryakant Pawar (supra.),
their Lordships affirmed the order of the High Court and did not interfere
with the finding of the Caste Scrutiny Committee observing that the
conclusions recorded by the Scrutiny Committee were reasonable and
fully supported by the material placed on record.