Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (1.10 seconds)
The State Of Tamil Nadu vs G. Hemalathaa on 28 August, 2019 cites

Mr. P.P. Zibi Jose, Mr. Swahel K. George ... vs The Catholic Syrian Bank Limited, Mr. ... on 5 January, 2007

6. Ms. V. Mohana, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Respondent vehemently argued that we should not exercise our discretion under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. According to her, there is no substantial question of law in the S.L.P. warranting our interference. She submitted that an error was committed by the Respondent which was rightly condoned by the High Court. She made a fervent appeal to us that the career of a meritorious backward class candidate should not be nipped at the bud.
Company Law Board Cites 14 - Cited by 170 - Full Document

Taherakhatoon (D) By Lrs vs Salambin Mohammad on 26 February, 1999

8. The High Court after summoning and perusing the answer sheet of the Respondent was convinced that there was infraction of the Instructions. However, the High Court granted the relief to the Respondent on a sympathetic consideration on humanitarian ground. The judgments cited by the learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent in Taherakhatoon (D) By LRs v. Salambin Mohammad2 and Chandra Singh and Others v. State of Rajasthan and Another3 in support of her arguments that we should not entertain this appeal in the absence of any substantial questions of law are not applicable to the facts of this case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 96 - M J Rao - Full Document

Manoharmal vs State Of Raj. & Ors on 18 May, 2009

8. The High Court after summoning and perusing the answer sheet of the Respondent was convinced that there was infraction of the Instructions. However, the High Court granted the relief to the Respondent on a sympathetic consideration on humanitarian ground. The judgments cited by the learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent in Taherakhatoon (D) By LRs v. Salambin Mohammad2 and Chandra Singh and Others v. State of Rajasthan and Another3 in support of her arguments that we should not entertain this appeal in the absence of any substantial questions of law are not applicable to the facts of this case.
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 0 - Cited by 177 - P C Tatia - Full Document

Dr. M. Vennila vs Tamil Nadu Public on 12 June, 2006

9. In spite of the finding that there was no adherence to the Instructions, the High Court granted the relief, ignoring the mandatory nature of the Instructions. It cannot be said 1 M. Vennila v. Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, (2006) 3 Mad. LJ 376 2 (1999) 2 SCC 635 3 (2003) 6 SCC 545 6 that such exercise of discretion should be affirmed by us, especially when such direction is in the teeth of the Instructions which are binding on the candidates taking the examinations.
Madras High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 78 - Full Document
1