Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 49 (0.75 seconds)Article 141 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Union Territory Chandigarh ... vs Pradeep Kumar And Ors on 24 February, 2016
9.Very recently, the Hon'ble Apex Court of India, in the case of UNION
TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION AND ORS. Vs. PRADEEP KUMAR AND ANOTHER,
in C.A.No.67 of 2018, reiterated the legal principles earlier laid down by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as well as by various High Courts. Her
Lordship Justice R.Banumathi.J, while speaking for the Bench made the
following observations:-
Daya Sankar Yadav vs Union Of India & Ors on 24 November, 2010
In Daya Shankar
Yadav's case (supra) though the Court found that the verification form was
not clear but still it was held that when the candidate has suppressed the
material fact that he was prosecuted, the candidature was rightly rejected.
Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Antitrust - Section 26(2) Disclaimer: ... vs Chief Executive Officer, Noida & Ors. ... on 29 April, 2014
In R. v. Panel on Take-overs and Mergers, ex p in Guinness plc (1989) 1
All ER 509, Lord Donaldson, M.R. referred to the judicial review jurisdiction
as being supervisory or 'longstop' jurisdiction. Unless that restriction on
the power of the court is observed, the court will, under the guise of
preventing the abuse of power, be itself guilty of usurping power.
Joginder Singh vs Union Territory Of Chandigarh . on 11 November, 2014
In the said case, the appellant thereon was charged under Sections 148, 149,
323, 325 and 307 IPC but acquitted by the trial court holding that the
prosecution has failed to prove the charges levelled against him since
complainant as well as injured eye witnesses failed to identify the
assailants and the complainant had stated that his signature was obtained on
a blank sheet by the Investigating Officer. The case involved was a family
dispute. In such facts and circumstances, this Court held that acquittal of
appellant Joginder Singh was an honourable acquittal and hence, he should not
be denied appointment to the post in question. The decision in Joginder Singh
case does not advance the case of the respondents herein.
Commissioner Of Police And Anr vs Mehar Singh on 2 July, 2013
25. The present is not a case of concealment of facts but in view of the
judgment of the Supreme Court in Mehar Singh and Parvez Khan (supra) wherein
appointment to the post of Constable has been held to be a post requiring
utmost rectitude and only a person of impeccable character and integrity is
required to be appointed, such test will increase manifold in respect of a
Judicial Officer, who is called upon to discharge the sovereign functions in
the administration of justice.
State Of M.P.& Ors vs Parvez Khan on 1 December, 2014
The same principle was reiterated in State of Madhya Pradesh and
Others v. Parvez Khan (2015) 2 SCC 591.
Avtar Singh vs Union Of India & Ors on 21 July, 2016
The view taken in Mehar Singh; Parvez Khan and
Pradeep Kumar's cases (supra) is no different than the view taken by the
larger Bench of the Supreme Court in Avtar Singh's case (supra), which
unequivocally held that the decision in respect of suitability of a candidate
has to be taken by the employer.