Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.22 seconds)
Ku. Seema Mukunda Nannaware vs The Schedule Tribe Certificate ... on 13 November, 2019 cites

Bhaiya Ram Munda vs Anirudh Patar & Ors on 14 August, 1970

5. Decisions of the Division Benches of this Court in Bhaiya Ram Munda vs. Anirudh Patar & others, 1971(1) SCER 804 and Dina vs. Narayan Singh, 38 ELR 212, did not lay down law correctly in stating that the enquiry was permissible and the evidence was admissible within the limitations indicated for the purpose of showing what an entry in the Presidential Order was intended to be. As stated in position (1) above no enquiry at all is permissible and no evidence can be let in, in the matter."
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 81 - J C Shah - Full Document

Anand vs Committee For S.&V. Of Tribe Claims &Ors on 8 November, 2011

It was also noticed that though the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Anand .vs. Committee for Scrutiny and Vertification of Tribe Claims and Others reported in (2011) Mh.L.J. 919 has held that the entries in the preconstitutional documents have more probative value and if a candidate has such documents of his fore - fathers, then the claim of such candidate cannot be rejected. Even in such cases, as a matter of routine, the claims were rejected.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 341 - D K Jain - Full Document

Anandkumar N. Patil, Meher Pesi ... vs Maharashtra University Of Health ... on 25 February, 2003

11. Shri Malke submitted that in the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Jaywant Dilip Pawar v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., delivered in Civil Appeal No.2336 of 2011 on 8-3-2017 , the decision of the Scrutiny Committee that the relatives of the appellants in the said case were not residents of the area mentioned in the Presidential Order, 1956, is set aside and it is held that what the ::: Uploaded on - 13/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/11/2019 03:27:59 ::: 11 wp4396.14.odt appellants were required to establish was that they belong to the community mentioned in the Schedule of the Act No.108 of 1976. It is thus clear that the Petitioner in the present case, was not required to establish that either her forefathers were the ordinary residents of the place meant for the tribals in the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order prevailing prior to 1976 or her forefathers migrated from the said area to the present place of residence.
Bombay High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 82 - D Y Chandrachud - Full Document

Pradip Bhimrao Nichale And Another vs Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate ... on 28 August, 2018

We find that there is no such conflict as sought to be projected by the learned Commissioner. The ratio laid down in the case of Apoorva d/o. Vinay Nichale (supra) will have to be considered as laying down a proposition that when a particular member in a family has been granted Validity Certificate after going through the rigour of scrutiny including enquiry by Vigilance Cell, then the brother, sister, father and mother of such a candidate should not be required to go through the rigour of such scrutiny again.
Bombay High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 237 - R K Deshpande - Full Document

Mana Adim Jamat Mandal vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors. on 11 June, 2003

19. The two decisions in Mana Adim Jamat's case support the view which we have taken. In view of the aforesaid law laid down by this Court and the Apex Court, the Committee was clearly in error in holding that 'Mana' community was included in the list of Other Backward Classes and later on in the list of Special Backward Classes, and though the Petitioner has established that she belongs to "Mana" community, it is not established that she belongs to "Mana Scheduled Tribe".
Bombay High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 67 - A P Shah - Full Document
1   2 Next