Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.21 seconds)
Smt. Vidya Gonnade (Dekate) vs Union Of India on 11 March, 2026 cites

Apoorva D/O Vinay Nichale vs Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny ... on 27 July, 2010

"7. He relied upon a decision of the Bombay High Court in Apoorva v. Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee No. 1 [Apoorva v. Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee No. 1, 2010 SCC OnLine Bom 1053 : (2010) 6 Mah LJ 401] . He 9 submitted that if an applicant successfully establishes his caste claim on the basis of documents relating to the pre-Constitution period or documents having probative value or a caste validity certificate granted to his blood relative, it is not necessary to apply the affinity test. In short, his submission is that the affinity test is not a litmus test.
Bombay High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 6 - S A Bobde - Full Document

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

The learned Senior Counsel also relied upon a decision of the Bombay High Court in Chhaya v. Committee for Scrutiny & Verification of Tribe Claims [Chhaya v. Committee for Scrutiny & Verification of Tribe Claims, 2018 SCC OnLine Bom 2107] dated 1-8-2018, which holds that in view of the decision of this Court in Anand [Anand v. Committee for Scrutiny & Verification of Tribe Claims, (2012) 1 SCC 113 : (2012) 1 SCC (Civ) 44 : (2012) 1 SCC (L&S) 43] , the impugned judgment in Shilpa Vishnu Thakur [Shilpa Vishnu Thakur v. State of Maharashtra, 2009 SCC OnLine Bom 705 : (2009) 3 Mah LJ 995] stands impliedly overruled. He would, therefore, submit that the impugned judgment calls for modification and it must be held that the affinity test is not of paramount importance while deciding a caste claim in accordance with the 2000 Act and the ST Rules.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 341 - D K Jain - Full Document

Dist.Collector Satara vs Mangesh Nivrutti Kashid on 1 October, 2019

The learned counsel pressed into service a decision of this Court in District Collector v. Mangesh Nivrutti Kashid [District Collector v. Mangesh Nivrutti Kashid, (2019) 10 SCC 166 : (2019) 2 SCC (L&S) 792] . He pointed out that this Court clearly stated that vigilance cell's assistance is not required to be taken in every case but only when the Scrutiny Committee is not satisfied with the documents 10 produced by the applicant. He also pointed out that an applicant who is a member of a Scheduled Tribe and who has been staying in an urban area may not be conversant with the traits, characteristics, ceremonies, and deities of the tribe.
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 8 - S K Kaul - Full Document
1   2 Next