Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (2.83 seconds)
Dr. Bishambhar Dayal Gupta Son Of Sri ... vs The Visitor/President Of India, ... on 18 August, 2005
cites
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Aligarh Muslim University Act, 1920
Bhagirathi Jena vs Board Of Directors, O.S.F.G. And Ors on 31 March, 1999
Writ Petition No. 6829 of 1996 decided on 2nd February, 2000 as also upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in that case of Bhagirathi Jena v. Board of Directors, O.S.F.C. and Ors., 1999(82) FLR 143.
Avinash Nagra vs Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti Etc on 30 September, 1996
14. The requirement of education for girls and the functions of a teacher have been dealt with and explained at some length by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Avinash Nagra v. Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti and Ors., , which read as follows:
Hira Nath Mishra And Ors. vs The Principal, Rajendra Medical ... on 4 April, 1973
15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Hira Nath Mishra and Ors. v. The Principle, Rajendra Medical College, Ranchi and Anr. , has specifically held that the rules of principles of natural justice are not inflexible and may differ in different circumstances, where proper enquiry is held by an enquiry committee comprising of independent persons in respect of allegations of indecent behaviour by male students against their mates of a girls' hostel, the rules of principles of natural justice did not require that the statements of girl students should be recorded in the presence of male students concerned.
State Bank Of Patiala & Ors vs S.K.Sharma on 27 March, 1996
16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State Bank of Patiala and Ors. v. S.K. Sharma; , examined the principles of natural justice in the context of disciplinary proceedings and held as follows:
S.N. Mukherjee vs Union Of India on 28 August, 1990
In that regard, the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India (1990) 4 SCC 594. It is further submitted that Executive Council in its resolution dated 16/17th May, 1989 had not recorded any finding of guilt on the charges levelled against the petitioner after considering the explanation furnished by the petitioner to the show-cause notice dated 28/29th March, 1989. Therefore, there has been an manifest infirmity in law.