Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.26 seconds)Akshita Singh vs Union Of India on 28 August, 2017
63. We cannot accept this argument as this would be adding and
supplementing something what has not been provided for either in the
Regulations or in the directions of the Apex Court in the case of Dar-
Us-Slam Educational Trust (supra) or even in the case of Akshita
Singh (supra). The entire process of admissions is being conducted
upon the directions so issued and therefore, to prescribe another mode
of merit as suggested by learned counsel would be crossing the limits
as prescribed by the Apex Court and the Regulations which hold the
field today.
Mithuna vs Government Of Puducherry on 12 October, 2018
4. The order dated 05.10.18 of the Hon'ble High Court
in WP (C) No.22400/2018 – Mithuna vs. Govt. of
Puducherry & Ors was received from the Registry of
this Hon'ble Court on 08.11.2018. This was processed
on 16.11.18 and forwarded to Monitoring Cell of the
Council for initiating action.
Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia vs Additional Member, Board Of Revenue, ... on 19 October, 1962
50. To this argument, the factual position is that the forty
students, or even one of them in representative capacity, were not
added as respondents to the writ petition to have actually disputed or
accepted the claim of the appellant Institution. Thus the proper and
necessary parties to rebut or accept such a fact of having been
contacted on phone not having been impleaded, no advantage of any
inference or presumption in favour of the Institution arises. As to who
is a proper and necessary party, reference be had to be Apex Court
decision in the case of Udit Narain Singh Malpharia v. Additional
Member Board of Revenue, Bihar and another, reported in AIR
1963 SC 786. A failure on this count is adverse to the appellant
Institution.
Bharat Singh & Ors vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 13 September, 1988
51. The neighbouring fact of not disclosing any material to
establish the mode of communication by phone to the forty candidates
is another serious default in pleading as in order to draw a favourable
presumption the appellant Institution ought to have discharged it's
burden effectively to create belief by supplementing it's bald
statements by factual details of information supported by evidence.
This burden was not discharged as per established principles of
__________
Page 49 of 74
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.Nos.494 and 500 of 2020
practice in writs, leaving aside strict rules of evidence under the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872, as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of
Bharat Singh and others v. State of Haryana and others,
reported in (1988) 4 SCC 534, where a bald pleading without
evidence was dealt with in paragraph (11) and (13) of the report as
under:
Ashish Kumar Ranjan vs Union Of India & Ors on 6 December, 2016
3. As per the judgment of this Hon'ble Court in the
case of Ashish Ranjan vs. Union of India & Ors. [(2016)
11 SCC 225], there shall be only two rounds of
common counselling each conducted by the
DGHS/State Government or authority designated by
the State Government for All India Quota (including
Deemed University) and State Quota seats
respectively.