Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 26 (0.25 seconds)
Moti Singh S/O Ranaram vs Rajasthan Staff Selection Board on 13 October, 2025 cites

State Of U.P. And Anr vs M/S. Synthetics And Chemicals Ltd. And ... on 18 July, 1991

Further, approving the decision of this Court in MCD v. Gurnam Kaur [MCD v. Gurnam Kaur, (1989) 1 SCC 101] which held that "precedents sub silentio and without argument are of no moment" this Court held [State of U.P. v. Synthetics & Chemicals Ltd., (1991) 4 SCC 139 : (1992) 87 STC 289] that : (Synthetics & Chemicals case [State of U.P. v. Synthetics & Chemicals Ltd., (1991) 4 SCC 139 : (1992) 87 STC 289], SCC p.163, para 41) "41. ... A decision which is not express and is not founded on reasons nor it proceeds on consideration of issue cannot be deemed to be a law declared to have a binding effect as is contemplated by Article
Supreme Court of India Cites 40 - Cited by 641 - T K Thommen - Full Document

Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs Gurnam Kaur on 12 September, 1988

Further, approving the decision of this Court in MCD v. Gurnam Kaur [MCD v. Gurnam Kaur, (1989) 1 SCC 101] which held that "precedents sub silentio and without argument are of no moment" this Court held [State of U.P. v. Synthetics & Chemicals Ltd., (1991) 4 SCC 139 : (1992) 87 STC 289] that : (Synthetics & Chemicals case [State of U.P. v. Synthetics & Chemicals Ltd., (1991) 4 SCC 139 : (1992) 87 STC 289], SCC p.163, para 41) "41. ... A decision which is not express and is not founded on reasons nor it proceeds on consideration of issue cannot be deemed to be a law declared to have a binding effect as is contemplated by Article
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 817 - A P Sen - Full Document

Maharashtra State Board Of Secondary ... vs Paritosh Bhupesh Kumar Sheth Etc on 17 July, 1984

"24. The issue of re-evaluation of answer book is no more res integra. This issue was considered at length by this Court in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. Paritosh Bhupesh Kurmarsheth, wherein this Court rejected the contention that in absence of provision for re-evaluation, a direction to this effect can be issued by the Court. The Court further held that even the policy decision incorporated in the Rules/Regulations not providing for rechecking/ verification/re-evaluation cannot be challenged unless there are grounds to show that the policy itself is in violation of some statutory provision...
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 990 - V B Eradi - Full Document

Vikesh Kumar Gupta vs The State Of Rajasthan on 7 December, 2020

It is not a case that a relevant statutory provision or a relevant judicial pronouncement has not been taken into consideration while passing the judgment dated 23.05.2023, (Uploaded on 14/10/2025 at 11:02:46 AM) (Downloaded on 14/10/2025 at 10:25:00 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:30938-DB] (44 of 46) [SAW-130/2024] therefore, the said judgment cannot be ignored by invoking the doctrine of Per Incuriam. The judgment dated 23.05.2023 passed by the Coordinate Bench cannot be said to be a judgment without arguments or without reference to the crucial words of the rule and without any citation of authority and therefore, even the rule of sub silentio cannot be invoked to avoid the binding effect of the said judgement.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 89 - L N Rao - Full Document
1   2 3 Next