Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.25 seconds)Article 341 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar And Ors vs State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 3 March, 1966
to Full Bench judgment in case of Shilpa Vishnu Thakur .vrs. State of
Maharashtra (supra), and thereafter in paragraph no.12 onwards
other judgments have been looked into. In paragraph no.14, there
is a categorical finding that in Maharashtra State "Thakur" is "Tribe"
as well as "Caste".
Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd vs Church Or South India Trust Assn. Csi ... on 29 April, 1992
does not mean that such a law laid down in said judgment ceases to
apply.
Smt. Ashvini Arvind More @ Anjali Anand ... vs The Schedule Tribe Caste Certificate ... on 25 November, 2016
Committee for
Scrutiny (supra), is appreciated and in paragraph no.23, it is
mentioned that when the Scrutiny Committee is not satisfied with
documentary evidence, it can conduct vigilance inquiry and also
apply affinity test. In paragraph no.24, there is a conclusion that the
petitioner has to prove that he belongs to a Tribe shown as
Scheduled Tribe, and it is permissible to consider whether he is tribal
or non-tribal. In paragraph no.26, the Division Bench finds that
::: Uploaded on - 08/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 10/08/2018 00:33:26 :::
Judgment wp4198.00 & ors.
Shilpa Vishnu Thakur vs State Of Maharashtra Through Its on 7 May, 2009
In Shilpa Thakur(supra) the Full Bench in paragraph
38 also points out that an instructive article on the subject, entitled
"Pseudo-Tribalization: An Anthropological Perspective", written by
Dr. Robin D. Tribhuwan, an Anthropologist associated with the
Tribal Research and Training Institute at Pune. The article by Dr.
Tribhuwan refers to similarities of nomenclatures between tribal and
non-tribal-communities. This is evident from the following table
looked into by the Full Bench:
Milkfood Ltd vs M/S Gmc Ice Cream (P) Ltd on 5 April, 2004
v. Dhirendra Nath (dead) by Lrs. and ors., JT
1999 (2) SC 586, (ii) Milkfood Ltd. v. GMC Ice
Cream (P) Ltd., 2004 (7) SCC 288, and (iii) S.
Brahmanand and others v. K.R. Muthugopal
(dead) and others, 2005 (12) SCC 764."
Vaishali Chatarsing Ingale (Thakur vs The Committee For Scrutiny And ... on 23 August, 2013
In this background, when the Division Bench judgment
delivered at Aurangabad in case of Monika Thakur (supra), on
04.05.2018, is looked into, it considers the facts as also precedence
available in the field. In paragraph nos.3 and 10 there is a reference
::: Uploaded on - 08/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 10/08/2018 00:33:26 :::
Judgment wp4198.00 & ors.
State Of Punjab And Anr vs Devans Modern Brewaries Ltd. And Anr on 20 November, 2003
Court should discuss the facts and the law
of both
the cases and then come to a conclusion whether
the principle enunciated in the previous judgment
is actually applicable on facts and law
to the
subsequent case. This principle would equally
apply when the Courts have to consider which of
the two views expressed by earlier equi or other
Benches is applicable to the subsequent case. The
rule of precedent is not without exceptions. It has
its own limitations. Besides that, the law changes
with the changed circumstances and even good
law may be rendered ineffective or
unconstitutional because of passage of time, as
reflected in the principle "cessante ratione cessat
ipsa lex". Adopting this Maxim, the Supreme Court
in the case of State of Punjab and another v.
Devans Modern Breweries Ltd. and another, 2004
(11) SCC 26, stated that, with changes that are
bound to occur in an evolving society, the judiciary
must also keep abreast of these changes in order
that the law is considered to be good law. This is
extremely pertinent especially in the current era of
globalisation where the entire philosophy of
society, on the economic front, is undergoing vast
changes. Besides this well accepted precept, there
are exceptions to the rule of precedent. There are
::: Uploaded on - 08/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 10/08/2018 00:33:26 :::
Judgment wp4198.00 & ors.
Commnr. Of Customs (Port), Chennai vs M/S Toyota Kirloskar Motor Pvt. Ltd on 17 May, 2007
"(PARA 15:-) Furthermore, ratio decidendi of a
judgment has to be found out only on reading the
entire judgment. The ratio of the judgment is what
is set out in the judgment itself. Answer to the
question necessarily would have to be read in the
context what is set out in the judgment and not in
isolation. In case of any doubt as regards any
observations, reasons or principles, the other part
of the judgment must be looked into. By reading a
line here and there from the judgment, one cannot
::: Uploaded on - 08/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 10/08/2018 00:33:26 :::
Judgment wp4198.00 & ors.