Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.39 seconds)Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Brajendra Maharana And Ors. vs The Utkal University on 18 August, 1975
In Brajendra v. Utkal University, AIR 1976 Orissa 25 it was a case of malpractice at the examination and the enquiry against the delinquent examinee was found to be proper, as the principleof natural justice was followed and, therefore, the petitions were dismissed This case does not support the petitioners.
Vibhu Kapoor vs Council Of Indian School Certificate ... on 15 February, 1985
In a Full Bench decision of the Delhi High Court, in Vibhu Kapoor v. Council of I.S.G. Examination, AIR 1985 Delhi 142 it was again a case of an individual student and penalty was found to have been imposed on mere suspicion, without giving any opportunity to the delinquent. There was no allegation that he had copied from other students.
Section 52 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Board Of High School & Intermediate ... vs Ghanshyam Das Gupta And Others on 6 February, 1962
6. The Supreme Court, in Board of High School v. Ghanshyam, AIR 1962 SC 1110 held -- action in cases of examinees using unfair means -- committee acts quasi-judicially -- principle of audi alteram partem applies, even if there is no provision in the statute to give any such opportunity. This was a case of three students using unfair means and, therefore, the examination was cancelled, without giving them any opportunity. It was not a case of mass copying.
Section 355 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Bihar School Examination Board vs Subhas Chandra Sinha, & Ors on 10 March, 1970
However, the Supreme Court, in Bihar S.E. Board v. Subhas Chandra, AIR 1970 SC 1269, held - adoption of unfair means by vast majority of examinees at particular centre -- school examination Board cancelling examination as a whole at that centre -- opportunity to represent their cases to all candidates not necessary before action was taken. Clearly this was a case of mass copying and accordingly no individual opportunity be given. Here also, though the ordinance provided for giving of opportunity before imposing penalty, that provision is only available, when an individual examinee is being charged with a specific act of using unfair means and not in case of examiner in mass using unfair means.
Jayesh Bhupatri Parikh vs University Of Bombay on 10 March, 1987
Again, it was not a case of mass copying, but concerning an individual student against whom there was no sufficient material Lastly, the case of the Bombay High Court in J.B. Parikh v. University of Bombay, AIR 1987 Bom332 is clearly distinguishable. There, the petitioner was accused of having adopted unfair means at the examination, but he was not given any opportunity to show cause against the findings of the enquiry committee. This case has also no application to a case of mass copying. Therefore, the action of the University has to be upheld so far as cancellation of the LL.B. Part II examination of the petitioners held in April-May 1987, is concerned.
1