Category: Education

Education Law-Admission-MBBS Course-Admissions to the MBBS Course could only through NEETI and NEET II–No other process of admission was permissible-Conducting of State Medical Admission Test despite the orders of Medical Council & Supreme Court-Admission cannot be held to be valid even though student is not at fault but is victim of mal-administration

2017(1) Law Herald (SC) 247 : 2017 LawHerald.Org 518 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Madan B. Lokur The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Prafulla C. Pant…

Migration to the Medical College – The Migration Sub-Committee of the Medical Council of India rejected the application whereupon a writ petition was filed on 30th July, 1998 in the High Court. By order dated 26th March, 1999, respondent No. 1 was allowed to attend the 2nd Year MBBS classes at the Government Medical College, Aurangabad and it is this order which is challenged in the present case

  (2000) 5 JT 498 : (2000) 9 SCC 163 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA nt Vs. DIPARANI P. DESHMUKH AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : S. S. M. Quadri,…

Constitution of India, 1950 – Articles 14, 16 and 226 – Education – Admission – Eligibility – Prospectus – Whether a State Government employee lent on deputation [at the request of the State Government employee on health ground] to a department of Central Government can be considered as a serving Central Government employee within the meaning of eligibility clause

  (1998) 9 AD 187 : AIR 1999 SC 227 : (1998) 8 JT 274 : (1998) 6 SCALE 375 : (1999) 1 SCC 126 : (1998) 3 SCR 271…

Application for migration – The Vice-Chancellor and also the Director/Principal of Dental College Rohtak have totally ignored the recommendations of the sub-committee, the guidelines laid down for admission and the merit list of the candidates and for reasons of their own, they selected persons of their own choice for admission in a high-handed and arbitrary manner

  (1996) 2 AD 54 : (1996) 1 JT 636 : (1996) 1 SCALE 587 : (1996) 2 SCC 103 : (1996) 1 SCR 862 : (1996) 1 UJ 398…

You missed

“Husband Has No Right On Wife’s Stridhan” Matrimonial Law – The appeal concerns a matrimonial dispute involving misappropriation of gold jewellery and monetary gifts – The appellant, a widow, married the first respondent, a divorcee, and alleged misappropriation of her jewelry and money by the respondents – The core issue is whether the appellant established the misappropriation of her gold jewellery by the respondents and if the High Court erred in its judgment – The appellant claimed that her jewellery was taken under the pretext of safekeeping on her wedding night and misappropriated by the respondents to settle their financial liabilities – The respondents denied the allegations, stating no dowry was demanded and that the appellant had custody of her jewellery, which she took to her paternal home six days after the marriage – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment, upheld the Family Court’s decree, and awarded the appellant Rs. 25,00,000 as compensation for her misappropriated stridhan – The Court found the High Court’s approach legally unsustainable, criticizing it for demanding a criminal standard of proof and basing findings on assumptions not supported by evidence – The Court emphasized the civil standard of proof as the balance of probabilities and noted that the appellant’s claim for return of stridhan does not require proof of acquisition – The Supreme Court concluded that the appellant had established a more probable case and directed the first respondent to pay the compensation within six months, with a 6% interest per annum in case of default.