Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.29 seconds)

T.M.A. Pai Foundation & Ors vs State Of Karnataka & Ors (With Other ... on 31 October, 2002

23. As far as the plea of the students that the fees for the academic year 2003-04 should also be on par with the fees prescribed by the Committee and the excess fees collected during the academic year 2003-04 should be adjusted against the future fees payable by the students is concerned, we find from the written submission made on behalf of the management of self-financing dental colleges that, "it is humbly submitted there is no substance having regard to the fact that the I and II year B.D.S. Course students who have been admitted during 2003-04 & 2004-05 i.e., after T.M.A.Pai's case are governed by the fee structure as proposed by the management subject to the writ petitions pending before this Hon'ble Court. The III & IV year students were admitted during the academic year 2000-02 whose fee structure had already been fixed in consonance with the fee fixed by the then Committee which is in terms of Unnikrishnan's scheme"
Supreme Court of India Cites 34 - Cited by 608 - V N Khare - Full Document

Rama. Muthuramalingam vs The Deputy Superintendent Of Police on 3 December, 2004

Further, we have in RAMA.MUTHURAMALINGAM v. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE reported in 2004 (5) CTC 554, held that the Court must exercise selfrestraint in matters relating to administration in which the authorities are specialists and the Court which has no expertise in those matters should leave the same to the discretion of the authorities concerned.
Madras High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 83 - M Katju - Full Document
1