Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.23 seconds)
Rocky Tuseed vs University Of Delhi & Ors. on 20 July, 2018 cites

State Of Punjab vs M/S. Bandeep Singh & Ors on 25 August, 2015

27. Now coming to the application filed by the applicant namely Rajat Choudhary is concerned, Mr. Gupta has opposed the maintainability of the application as the same is by a person, who was defeated by the petitioner. There is no dispute that the action challenged is of the Delhi University declaring the petitioner ineligible for contesting the post of President. It is the legality of the said action, which has to be decided by this Court. The applicant has sought his intervention on the ground that the petitioner was also ineligible, as per other recommendations of the Lyngdoh Committee, which have been accepted by the Supreme Court, is no reason to seek his intervention, as he is neither proper nor a necessary party. Mr. Gupta may be right in contending that the order has to be tested on the reasoning given W.P.(C) No. 7980/2017 Page 35 of 37 by the University in declaring the petitioner ineligible, which submissions have already been noted above by relying upon various judgments of the Supreme Court including Mohinder Singh Gill (supra), Union of India v. H.P. Chothia (supra), State of Punjab v. Bandeep Singh (supra) is appealing. I do not see any merit in the application for intervention. But at the same time, it must be noted, the petitioner in his affidavit has stated "That I have not failed in the preceding academic year and / or re-admitted in the current year" which in view of the fact that the petitioner got admission in M.A. Buddhist Studies in August, 2017 in which elections were held, is an incorrect fact.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 94 - V Sen - Full Document

Canara Bank And Ors vs Shri Debasis Das And Ors on 12 March, 2003

Insofar as the judgments relied upon by Mr. Gupta are concerned, the case of Canara Bank v. Debasis Das (supra) shall not be applicable in the facts of this case, inasmuch as the petitioner does not dispute that Disciplinary Committee was constituted against him for certain misdemeanor and resulted in banning of his entry into the College and a notice for the information of all was also issued, that too, on the apology tendered by him, which is part of the writ petition.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 494 - A Pasayat - Full Document

Registrar General,Patna High Court vs Pandey Gajendra Prasad & Ors on 11 May, 2012

In so far as the submission of Mr. Gupta that the court while exercising the power of judicial review cannot substitute its own views with the views of the Authority by relying upon Syed Naqshbandi (supra), State of Tamil Nadu (supra), Heinz India (P) Ltd. (supra), Rae Bareli Kshetriya Gramin Bank (supra), Harpal Singh Chauhan (supra) and Registrar General, High Court of Patna v. Pandey Gajendra Prasad (supra) is W.P.(C) No. 7980/2017 Page 34 of 37 concerned, there is no dispute on the said proposition. My finding above, does not amount to this Court substituting its own views with the views of the Authority. Rather, this Court has only tested the view taken by the Authority that the disciplinary action having been taken against the petitioner, the petitioner shall be ineligible in terms of the Code of Conduct / Lyngdoh Committee Recommendations as accepted by the Supreme Court. The said judgments are distinguishable.
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 38 - D K Jain - Full Document

University Of Kerala vs Council,Principals',Colleges,Kerala ... on 11 November, 2009

4. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents, wherein it is stated that according to the Lyngdoh Committee W.P.(C) No. 7980/2017 Page 3 of 37 Recommendations, the candidate shall not have a previous criminal record, that is to say he should not have been tried and/or convicted of any criminal offence or misdemeanor. The candidate shall also not have been subject to any disciplinary action by the University authorities. It is stated the petitioner undertook to abide by the Code of Conduct for the candidates contesting DUSU elections. It is stated, as per the Code of Conduct every candidate is required to furnish an affidavit along with the security deposit, to the effect that (i) He/she does not have any previous criminal record and has not been subjected to any disciplinary action by the University / College (ii) Has not failed in the previous academic year or readmitted in the current year. A reference is also made to Clause 19 of the Code of Conduct, which provides that contravention of any of the above provisions of Code of Conduct may make candidate liable to be striped of his candidature, or his elected post, as the case may be. The College / University may also take appropriate disciplinary action against such violator. Further, Clause 22 of the Code of Conduct states, notwithstanding anything contained in the aforesaid Code of Conduct, the directives of the Supreme Court Judgement dated September 22, 2006 shall prevail. The W.P.(C) No. 7980/2017 Page 4 of 37 petitioner submitted an affidavit as required for contesting the Delhi University Students Union election 2017-2018 for the post of President. The petitioner stated in his affidavit that he has carefully read the constitution of DUSU; Code of Conduct for the candidates contesting DUSU elections; Lyngdoh Committee Recommendations as accepted by the Supreme Court vide its judgment dated September 22, 2006 in the case of University of Kerala v. Council, Principals, Colleges, Kerala and others and National Green Tribunal's order dated July 18, 2016 and he shall abide by all the rules/provisions contained thereto. In case of violation of the same, his candidature may be cancelled and he be stripped of his elected post, at any stage. The petitioner had filed his nomination on September 04, 2017 for the post of President in DUSU election. However, four complaints were received on September 04th and 05th, 2017 by the office of the respondent No.2 conducting the DUSU election that the petitioner does not fulfil the criteria for contesting the DUSU elections. He initiated the enquiry into the matter and the Principal of the Shivaji College where the petitioner studied was contacted. The Principal, Shivaji College then sent an e-mail confirming that the disciplinary action was taken against the petitioner. He had sent W.P.(C) No. 7980/2017 Page 5 of 37 a copy of the minutes of the meeting of the disciplinary committee along with the apology letter of the petitioner. It transpired that the complete record was sent to the respondent No.2 with regard to the disciplinary action taken against the petitioner by the said College in the year 2014 when the petitioner was student of the said College.
Supreme Court of India Cites 48 - Cited by 73 - Full Document

The Government Of Tamil Nadu vs Miss.S.Mary Victoria on 7 December, 2016

In so far as the submission of Mr. Gupta that the court while exercising the power of judicial review cannot substitute its own views with the views of the Authority by relying upon Syed Naqshbandi (supra), State of Tamil Nadu (supra), Heinz India (P) Ltd. (supra), Rae Bareli Kshetriya Gramin Bank (supra), Harpal Singh Chauhan (supra) and Registrar General, High Court of Patna v. Pandey Gajendra Prasad (supra) is W.P.(C) No. 7980/2017 Page 34 of 37 concerned, there is no dispute on the said proposition. My finding above, does not amount to this Court substituting its own views with the views of the Authority. Rather, this Court has only tested the view taken by the Authority that the disciplinary action having been taken against the petitioner, the petitioner shall be ineligible in terms of the Code of Conduct / Lyngdoh Committee Recommendations as accepted by the Supreme Court. The said judgments are distinguishable.
Madras High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Rai Bareli Kshetriya Gramin Bank vs Bhola Nath Singh & Ors on 28 February, 1997

In so far as the submission of Mr. Gupta that the court while exercising the power of judicial review cannot substitute its own views with the views of the Authority by relying upon Syed Naqshbandi (supra), State of Tamil Nadu (supra), Heinz India (P) Ltd. (supra), Rae Bareli Kshetriya Gramin Bank (supra), Harpal Singh Chauhan (supra) and Registrar General, High Court of Patna v. Pandey Gajendra Prasad (supra) is W.P.(C) No. 7980/2017 Page 34 of 37 concerned, there is no dispute on the said proposition. My finding above, does not amount to this Court substituting its own views with the views of the Authority. Rather, this Court has only tested the view taken by the Authority that the disciplinary action having been taken against the petitioner, the petitioner shall be ineligible in terms of the Code of Conduct / Lyngdoh Committee Recommendations as accepted by the Supreme Court. The said judgments are distinguishable.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 97 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document

Union Of India vs Chothia (H.P.) And Ors. Etc. Etc on 7 April, 1978

27. Now coming to the application filed by the applicant namely Rajat Choudhary is concerned, Mr. Gupta has opposed the maintainability of the application as the same is by a person, who was defeated by the petitioner. There is no dispute that the action challenged is of the Delhi University declaring the petitioner ineligible for contesting the post of President. It is the legality of the said action, which has to be decided by this Court. The applicant has sought his intervention on the ground that the petitioner was also ineligible, as per other recommendations of the Lyngdoh Committee, which have been accepted by the Supreme Court, is no reason to seek his intervention, as he is neither proper nor a necessary party. Mr. Gupta may be right in contending that the order has to be tested on the reasoning given W.P.(C) No. 7980/2017 Page 35 of 37 by the University in declaring the petitioner ineligible, which submissions have already been noted above by relying upon various judgments of the Supreme Court including Mohinder Singh Gill (supra), Union of India v. H.P. Chothia (supra), State of Punjab v. Bandeep Singh (supra) is appealing. I do not see any merit in the application for intervention. But at the same time, it must be noted, the petitioner in his affidavit has stated "That I have not failed in the preceding academic year and / or re-admitted in the current year" which in view of the fact that the petitioner got admission in M.A. Buddhist Studies in August, 2017 in which elections were held, is an incorrect fact.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 25 - S M Ali - Full Document

Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr vs The Chiief Election Commissioner, New ... on 2 December, 1977

27. Now coming to the application filed by the applicant namely Rajat Choudhary is concerned, Mr. Gupta has opposed the maintainability of the application as the same is by a person, who was defeated by the petitioner. There is no dispute that the action challenged is of the Delhi University declaring the petitioner ineligible for contesting the post of President. It is the legality of the said action, which has to be decided by this Court. The applicant has sought his intervention on the ground that the petitioner was also ineligible, as per other recommendations of the Lyngdoh Committee, which have been accepted by the Supreme Court, is no reason to seek his intervention, as he is neither proper nor a necessary party. Mr. Gupta may be right in contending that the order has to be tested on the reasoning given W.P.(C) No. 7980/2017 Page 35 of 37 by the University in declaring the petitioner ineligible, which submissions have already been noted above by relying upon various judgments of the Supreme Court including Mohinder Singh Gill (supra), Union of India v. H.P. Chothia (supra), State of Punjab v. Bandeep Singh (supra) is appealing. I do not see any merit in the application for intervention. But at the same time, it must be noted, the petitioner in his affidavit has stated "That I have not failed in the preceding academic year and / or re-admitted in the current year" which in view of the fact that the petitioner got admission in M.A. Buddhist Studies in August, 2017 in which elections were held, is an incorrect fact.
Supreme Court of India Cites 56 - Cited by 4221 - V R Iyer - Full Document

State Of Maharashtra & Ors vs Namdeo Etc.Etc on 9 September, 2013

Ultimately, the Supreme Court in the case reported as (2013) 14 SCC 225 State of Maharashtra v. Namdeo held that after exercising the power of judicial review, even if the Court comes to a decision that the order is flawed or perverse, the High Court can, at the most, remit the matter back to the authority. He submitted, the ground that the petitioner had an FIR against him is of no consequence as the disqualification as per the Lyngdoh Committee Report is attracted only if a person has been 'tried' or 'convicted' of an offence, whereas the petitioner was never tried for any criminal offence.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 10 - A K Sikri - Full Document

Syed T.A. Naqshbandi & Ors vs State Of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors on 9 May, 2003

In so far as the submission of Mr. Gupta that the court while exercising the power of judicial review cannot substitute its own views with the views of the Authority by relying upon Syed Naqshbandi (supra), State of Tamil Nadu (supra), Heinz India (P) Ltd. (supra), Rae Bareli Kshetriya Gramin Bank (supra), Harpal Singh Chauhan (supra) and Registrar General, High Court of Patna v. Pandey Gajendra Prasad (supra) is W.P.(C) No. 7980/2017 Page 34 of 37 concerned, there is no dispute on the said proposition. My finding above, does not amount to this Court substituting its own views with the views of the Authority. Rather, this Court has only tested the view taken by the Authority that the disciplinary action having been taken against the petitioner, the petitioner shall be ineligible in terms of the Code of Conduct / Lyngdoh Committee Recommendations as accepted by the Supreme Court. The said judgments are distinguishable.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 68 - D Raju - Full Document
1   2 Next