We may recall the well-known observations of Menon C. J., in Aldo Maria Patroni and Another Vs. E.C. Kesavan and Others, regarding the unique position of the head of an educational institution — in that case the Headmaster of a school. “14. The post of the headmaster is of pivotal importance in the life of a school. Around him wheels […]
Month: January 2019
Supreme Court in Hira Nath Mishra and Others Vs. The Principal, Rajendra Medical College, Ranchi and Another, . It was observed by the Supreme Court (at p. 1264) : “11. Rules of natural justice cannot remain the same applying to all conditions. We know of statutes in India like the Goonda Acts which permit evidence being collected behind the back […]
In The Board of High School and Intermediate Education U.P. Vs. Bagleshwar Prasad and Others, the Supreme Court has indicated how High Court should view disciplinary proceedings taken by a University against a student in the matter of malpractice in examination. The Court observed: “In dealing with petitions of this type, it is necessary to bear in mind that educational […]
The word “Chartered Accountant” has got it own significance and the discussion that was made at the time of adoption of the nomenclature by the Joint Committee, supports the case of the 1st respondent-Institute the value and the significance that is being attached to the designation “Chartered Accountant” for the members of the Institute for use of the letters ‘C.A.’ […]
Supreme Court in Mahabir Auto Stores and others Vs. Indian Oil Corporation and others held that the State or its instrumentality, when engaged in commercial transactions, must act reasonably, and should inform and take into confidence the adverse party against whom adverse action is contemplated. Any contractual dealings between the State and a citizen can never attract jural investigation under Article […]
when an instrumentality of the State acts contrary to public good and public interest, unfairly, unjustly and unreasonably, in its contractual constitutional or statutory obligations, it really acts contrary to The constitutional guarantee found in Article 14 of the Constitution. Thus if we apply the above principle of applicability of Article 14 to the facts of this case, then we notice that the first respondent being an instrumentality of State and a monopoly body had to be approached by the appellants by compulsion to cover its export risk.
Government of India and in exercise of the powers conferred under Clause (e) and (g) of Sub-section (1) of Section 26 of the UGC Act, 1956, UGC enacted Regulations, 2010 in supersession of the UGC Regulations, 2000. It was published in the Gazette of India on 28th June, 2010 and came into force with immediate effect. Relevant portion of the […]
Both the Oxford Dictionary and Webster’s Third International Dictionary have given the meaning of the word ‘rusticate’ to mean expulsion for a specified temporary period. It is well-known that the word ‘rusticate’ owes its origin to the word ‘rustic’ or a man from the country. ‘To rusticate’ means to send the man away to the country. However, the meaning in […]
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT SINGLE BENCH ( Before : Sabyasachi Mukherji, J ) PROBODH KUMAR BHOWMICK — Appellant Vs. UNIVERSITY OF CALCUTTA AND OTHERS — Respondent Civil Rule No. 4000 [W] of 1979 Decided on : 25-04-1980 Bengal General Clauses Act, 1899 – Section 22 Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226 JUDGMENT Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.—This is an application by one […]
You must be logged in to post a comment.