Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By:
RelevanceDefaultDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Supreme Court affirms High Court decision on Gramin Bank promotion exam process.</h1> <h3>Chandra Prakash Singh & Ors Versus Chairman, Purvanchal Gramin Bank & Ors</h3> The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision in a case concerning the promotion examination process within a Gramin Bank. The Court found no ... - Issues Involved:1. Legality of the examination process for promotion within the Gramin Bank.2. Allegations of bias and mala fide against the Chairman of the Gramin Bank.3. Validity of the inquiry conducted by the State Government.4. Delay and laches in filing the writ petition.5. Estoppel due to participation in the examination.Detailed Analysis:Legality of the Examination Process for Promotion:The appellants challenged the examination process for promotion to the posts of Officer Scale I and Officer Scale II in the Gramin Bank, claiming it was conducted improperly. The examination was held on 18.08.2002 by the Institute of Banking Personnel Selection, Mumbai, after approval from the Board of Directors of the Gramin Bank. The High Court found that the written examination was conducted by a reputable body and there was no evidence of any irregularities in the process. The Supreme Court upheld this finding, noting that the appellants had participated in the examination without protest and failed to qualify.Allegations of Bias and Mala Fide Against the Chairman:The appellants alleged that the then Chairman, Sri Zameer Hasan, influenced the examination process to benefit his brother and cousin. The High Court dismissed these allegations, stating that the appellants failed to provide sufficient evidence of bias or mala fide. The Supreme Court concurred, emphasizing that the burden of proving mala fide is very heavy and must be supported by specific and convincing evidence. The Court found that the appellants' allegations were vague and unsubstantiated, and there was no proof that the Chairman had manipulated the examination results.Validity of the Inquiry Conducted by the State Government:An inquiry was conducted by a committee appointed by the State Government, which reported certain irregularities. However, the High Court noted that the State Government has no authority over the Gramin Bank, which is governed by the Central Government under the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976. The Supreme Court agreed, stating that the inquiry was ex parte and did not follow due process. The Court also noted that the inquiry report did not point out any specific infirmities in the conduct of the written examination.Delay and Laches in Filing the Writ Petition:The Gramin Bank contended that the writ petition was delayed and suffered from laches. The High Court agreed, noting that the appellants had participated in the examination and only challenged the process after failing to qualify. The Supreme Court upheld this view, stating that the appellants were estopped from challenging the examination due to their participation and delay in filing the petition.Estoppel Due to Participation in the Examination:The High Court held that the appellants were estopped from challenging the examination as they had participated in it without any protest. The Supreme Court agreed, stating that by participating in the examination, the appellants had accepted its validity and could not later claim it was unfair or biased.Conclusion:The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's decision. The Court found no evidence of bias or mala fide against the Chairman and noted that the examination process was conducted fairly by a reputable body. The inquiry by the State Government was deemed invalid, and the appellants were found to be estopped from challenging the examination due to their participation and delay in filing the writ petition. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found