<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1991 (3) TMI 387 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173442</link>
    <description>The statutory scheme for academic discipline empowered the Divisional Board&#039;s Standing Committee to inquire into tampering with moderators&#039; mark-sheets and other unfair means, so its decision was within jurisdiction. The enquiry was also consistent with natural justice because the candidates received show-cause notices, access to documents, an opportunity to explain, and a chance to lead evidence, while concise reports were sufficient where the facts were largely admitted. In disciplinary matters of this kind, findings may rest on circumstantial evidence and admissions on a preponderance of probabilities. The supported finding of fabrication for the candidates&#039; benefit could not be reappreciated in supervisory writ jurisdiction, so the Board&#039;s action was sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 12 Mar 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 15 Sep 2015 17:31:23 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=397457" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1991 (3) TMI 387 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173442</link>
      <description>The statutory scheme for academic discipline empowered the Divisional Board&#039;s Standing Committee to inquire into tampering with moderators&#039; mark-sheets and other unfair means, so its decision was within jurisdiction. The enquiry was also consistent with natural justice because the candidates received show-cause notices, access to documents, an opportunity to explain, and a chance to lead evidence, while concise reports were sufficient where the facts were largely admitted. In disciplinary matters of this kind, findings may rest on circumstantial evidence and admissions on a preponderance of probabilities. The supported finding of fabrication for the candidates&#039; benefit could not be reappreciated in supervisory writ jurisdiction, so the Board&#039;s action was sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 12 Mar 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173442</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>