Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 20 (3.37 seconds)
Vinod Singh Tomar vs Union Of India on 9 September, 2015 cites

State Of M.P.& Ors vs Parvez Khan on 1 December, 2014

15. We are also constrained to observe that the appellant is seeking appointment in the police force and therefore even if he had disclosed the material facts regarding registration of the case against him, the authorities would still have had the right to refuse appointment in appropriate cases in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of State of M.P. and others Vs. Parvez Khan, 2015(1) MPHT 1 (SC) and Mehar Singh Vs. Commissioner of Police, New Delhi and another Vs. Shani Kumar, (2013) 7 SCC 685.
Supreme Court of India Cites 27 - Cited by 166 - A K Goel - Full Document

Mehar Singh S/O Kunwar Singh vs Commissioner Of Police on 7 March, 2012

15. We are also constrained to observe that the appellant is seeking appointment in the police force and therefore even if he had disclosed the material facts regarding registration of the case against him, the authorities would still have had the right to refuse appointment in appropriate cases in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of State of M.P. and others Vs. Parvez Khan, 2015(1) MPHT 1 (SC) and Mehar Singh Vs. Commissioner of Police, New Delhi and another Vs. Shani Kumar, (2013) 7 SCC 685.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 10 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

Ram Chandra Singh vs Savitri Devi And Ors on 9 October, 2003

In Ram Chandra Singh v. Savitri Devi & Ors., AIR 2004 SC 4096, this Court held that "misrepresentation itself amounts to fraud", and further held :(SCC p.327, para 18) "18 "A fraudulent misrepresentation is called deceit and consists in leading a man into damage by wilfully or recklessly causing him to believe and act on falsehood. It is a fraud in law if a party makes representations which he knows to be false, and injury ensues therefrom although the motive from which the representations proceeded may not have been bad."
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 485 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan & Ors vs Ram Ratan Yadav on 26 February, 2003

In Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. Ram Ratan Yadav, AIR 2003 SC 1709; and A.P. Public Service Commission v. Koneti Venkateswarulu, AIR 2005 SC 4292, this Court examined a similar case, wherein, employment had been obtained by suppressing a material fact at the time of appointment. The Court rejected the plea taken by the employee that the Form was printed in English and he did not know the language, and therefore, could not understand what information was sought.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 263 - S V Patil - Full Document

A.P. Public Service Commission vs Koneti Venkateswarulu & Ors on 30 August, 2005

In Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. Ram Ratan Yadav, AIR 2003 SC 1709; and A.P. Public Service Commission v. Koneti Venkateswarulu, AIR 2005 SC 4292, this Court examined a similar case, wherein, employment had been obtained by suppressing a material fact at the time of appointment. The Court rejected the plea taken by the employee that the Form was printed in English and he did not know the language, and therefore, could not understand what information was sought.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 93 - Full Document
1   2 Next