SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1996 Supreme(SC) 593

B.P.JEEVAN REDDY, SUHAS C.SEN
Admission Committee, Commissioner Of Income Tax, 1995 – Appellant
Versus
Anand Kumar – Respondent


ORDER

1. Heard counsel for the parties. Leave granted.

2. We are unhappy to note that the High Court has chosen to believe the version of the student against the Members of the Selection Committee. It was a case of word against word and in the absence of any mala fide or any other supporting material, one should have thought that the Court would have preferred to accept the version of the Selection Committee. Moreover, calling upon the Selection Committee to answer and justify each and every selection made, in the absence of any mala fides is to cause impossible burden upon it. We therefore set aside the judgment of the High Court but so far as the respondent is concerned, since three years have passed by since the admission to the course of his choice, we are not inclined to disturb him at this distance of time.

3. The appeal is accordingly allowed subject to the above directions.

4. No costs.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top