Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.34 seconds)State Of Maharashtra vs Manubhai Pragaji Vashi & Ors on 16 August, 1995
(b) Similar issue arose before the Honourable Supreme Court in the
decision reported in AIR 1996 SC 1 (State of Maharashtra v. Manubhai Pragaji
Vashi). In the said judgment, non-extension of grant in aid to a private law
college was considered by the Honourable Supreme Court. The Honourable
Supreme Court held that a duty is cast on the State to extend the grant in aid
and the same cannot be whittled down either by pleading paucity of funds or
otherwise and ultimately directed the Government to extend the grant in aid
scheme to all Government Recognised Private Law Colleges.
The Chandigarh Administration And ... vs Mrs. Rajni Vali And Others. on 12 January, 2000
(c) In AIR 2000 SC 634 (Chanigarh Administration v. Rajni Vali)
in paragraph 6 the Honourable Supreme Court held as follows:
St. Stephen'S College vs University Of Delhi on 6 December, 1991
(d) A constitution Bench of the Honourable Supreme Court in the
decision reported in AIR 1992 SC 1630 (St.Stephen's College v. University of
Delhi) considered the issue of aid to minority institutions. In paragraph 89
the Supreme Court held thus,
"The educational institutions are not business houses. They do not
generate wealth. They cannot survive without public funds or private aid. It
is said that there is also restraint on collection of students fees. With the
restraint on collection of fees, the minorities cannot be saddled with the
burden of maintaining educational institutions without grant-in-aid.
Church Of South India vs State Of Tamil Nadu Represented By on 7 September, 2004
(a) A Division Bench of this Court in the decision reported in
1988 WLR 130 (Church of South India v. The Government of Tamil Nadu) held
that want of finance is not a ground to deny teaching post to an aided school.
T.M.A. Pai Foundation & Ors vs State Of Karnataka & Ors (With Other ... on 31 October, 2002
The said proposition of the law was also approved by the
Constitutional Bench decision in TMA Pai Foundation and others V. State of
Karnataka, (2002) 8 SCC 481.
T.K. Ponnuswamy And Others vs Government Of Tamil Nadu And Others on 27 September, 1994
(g) By Judgment dated 23.8.1990 in W.A.No.24 of 1990, a Division
Bench of this Court held that once recognition is granted with aid to a
private School, the sanction of posts shall be made automatically if the norms
for the sanction of post is satisfied, otherwise the grant of recognition will
be rendered meaningless. The Division Bench upheld the order of the learned
single Judge made in W.P.No.4570 of 1987 dated 27.9.1989 (T.Sekarapillai and 5
others v. The State of Tamil Nadu and 2 others) with slight modification.
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Unnikrishnan P.J. And Ors. vs State Of A.P. And Ors. on 14 May, 1993
(f) The said right to education under Article 21 was considered by
the Supreme court in Unnikrishnan J.P. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1993
SC 2178.
North Arcot Ambedkhar And Sambuvarayar ... vs The State Of Tamil Nadu, Represented By ... on 6 October, 1998
11. The validity of G.O.Ms.No.525 dated 29.12.1997 was challenged
before this Court. The Government justified the issuance of Government Order
and stated that only for equal distribution of posts to all aided schools the
said Government Order was issued and an assurance was also given in the
counter affidavit that whenever a school is in need of additional post as per
the students strength, necessary steps will be taken to sanction additional
post. The said portion of the counter affidavit was extracted in the judgment
reported in 1999 (1) MLJ 635 (North Arcot Ambedkar and Sambuvarayar District
recognised Private Aided Primary and Middle Schools Managers and Teacher
Managers Association v. The State of Tamil Nadu), which reads thus,
"... In fact, there is an assurance in the counter itself (in para