Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.96 seconds)
Desh Bhagat Dental College And Ors. vs State Of Punjab Through Its Principal ... on 20 January, 2003
cites
Hemlata Panda And Ors. vs Sukuri Dibya And Ors. on 12 October, 1999
22. The fourth contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner-college is based on the judgment rendered by this court in Hemlata's case (supra).
Unni Krishnan, J.P. And Ors. Etc. Etc vs State Of Andhra Pradesh And Ors. Etc. Etc on 4 February, 1993
8. While addressing submissions on the basis of the decision rendered by the Apex Court in T.M.A. Pai's case (supra), learned counsel for the petitioner invited our attention to the conclusion drawn in paragraph 45 of the judgment wherein the Apex Court recorded, that its earlier decision in Unni Krishnan, J.P. v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors., J.T. 1993(1) S.C. 474, in so far as it framed a scheme regulating admissions to professional courses conducted by private educational institutions, and in so far as it provided for a fee structure for the same, was not correct, therefore, to the aforesaid extent the decision rendered in Unni Krishnan's case (supra) was over-ruled.
St. Stephen'S College vs University Of Delhi on 6 December, 1991
Learned counsel for the petitioner also invited our attention to the judgments rendered by the Apex Court in St. Stephens' College v. University of Delhi, J.T. 1991(4) S.C. 548, R. Chiterlekha v. State of Mysore and Ors., (1964)6 S.C.R. 368, Minor P. Rajendran v. State of Madras and Ors., (1968)2 S.C.R. 786, and Kumari Chitra Ghosh v. Union of India and Ors., (1969)2 S.C.C. 228 (which were also noticed in paragraphs 41, 42, 43 and 44 of the judgment rendered in T.M.A. Pai's case) on the basis of which, the Apex Court in T.M.A. Pai's case (supra) arrived at the conclusion that the scheme regulating admissions and fixing fee thereof, was not correct.
M. Sundaramoorthy, D. Vembuli, A. ... vs The Commissioner Of Labour, Teynampet, ... on 5 April, 2002
Learned counsel for the petitioner also invited our attention to the judgments rendered by the Apex Court in St. Stephens' College v. University of Delhi, J.T. 1991(4) S.C. 548, R. Chiterlekha v. State of Mysore and Ors., (1964)6 S.C.R. 368, Minor P. Rajendran v. State of Madras and Ors., (1968)2 S.C.R. 786, and Kumari Chitra Ghosh v. Union of India and Ors., (1969)2 S.C.C. 228 (which were also noticed in paragraphs 41, 42, 43 and 44 of the judgment rendered in T.M.A. Pai's case) on the basis of which, the Apex Court in T.M.A. Pai's case (supra) arrived at the conclusion that the scheme regulating admissions and fixing fee thereof, was not correct.
S. S. Grewal vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 7 May, 1993
In this behalf, reference may be made to the decision rendered by the Apex Court in S.S. Grewal v. State of Punjab and Ors., 1993 Supp(3) Supreme Court Cases 234, wherein it was observed as under: -
Article 19 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
T.M.A.Pai Foundation & Ors vs State Of Karnataka & Ors on 31 October, 2002
8. While addressing submissions on the basis of the decision rendered by the Apex Court in T.M.A. Pai's case (supra), learned counsel for the petitioner invited our attention to the conclusion drawn in paragraph 45 of the judgment wherein the Apex Court recorded, that its earlier decision in Unni Krishnan, J.P. v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors., J.T. 1993(1) S.C. 474, in so far as it framed a scheme regulating admissions to professional courses conducted by private educational institutions, and in so far as it provided for a fee structure for the same, was not correct, therefore, to the aforesaid extent the decision rendered in Unni Krishnan's case (supra) was over-ruled.
The Dentists Act, 1948
1