MOHIT KUMAR SHAH
Qamar Ahsan – Appellant
Versus
State Of Bihar – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Mohit Kumar Shah, J. - The present writ petition has been filed seeking quashing of the order dated 13.12.2018 passed by the Chancellor, Magadh University, Bodh Gaya, as communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 13.12.2018, whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been directed to submit his resignation from the post of Vice-Chancellor, Magadh University, Bodh Gaya on or before 13.12.2018, failing which it shall be deemed that the petitioner has resigned from the said post. The petitioner has also challenged the Notification No. MU/47/ 2017-2092/Ra. Sa. (1) dated 07.08.2018, issued by the Governor's Secretariat, Raj Bhawan, Bihar, under the orders of the Chancellor, Magadh University, Bodh Gaya, whereby and whereunder a two member enquiry committee was constituted to enquire into the allegations against the petitioner. Consequently, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the enquiry report dated 26.09.2018. Lastly, the petitioner has prayed for holding and declaring that the petitioner was never removed from the post of Vice-Chancellor, Magadh University, Bodh Gaya pursuant to the aforesaid order dated 13.12.2018 and as a consequence thereof, he be deemed to have co
Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh vs. State of Vindhya Pradesh
S. R. Tiwari vs. District Board, Agra
Sarabjit Rick Singh vs. Union of India
South India Corpn. (P) Ltd. vs. Board of Revenue
St. Stephen s College vs. University of Delhi
State Bank of Patiala vs. S. K. Sharma
State of J&K vs. Hindustan Forest Co.
State of Punjab vs. Bhagat Ram
State of U. P. & Ors. vs. Nand Kishore Kumar Shukla
State of U. P. vs. Singhara Singh
State of U.P. vs. Mohd. Sharif
Swadeshi Cotton Mills vs. Union of India
Syed T. A. Naqshbandi vs. The State of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors.
Syed Yakoob vs. K. S. Radha krishnan & ors.
Union of India vs. India Fisheries (P) Ltd.
Union of India vs. Jesus Sales Corpn.
Union of India vs. Sankalchand Himatlal Sheth
Usmanbhai Dawoodbhai Memon vs. State of Gujarat
Waverly Jute Mills Co. Ltd. vs. Raymon & Co. (India) (P) Ltd.
A. K. Kraipak vs. Union of India
Anandji Haridas and Co. (P) Ltd. vs. S.P. Kasture
Babu Verghese vs. Bar Council of Kerala
Basudeo Tiwary vs. Sido Kanhu University & Ors.
Bhuvnesh Kumar Dwivedi vs. Hindalco Industries Limited
CCE vs. Jayant Oil Mills (P) Ltd.
Chandramouleshwar Prasad vs. Patna High Court
Commercial Tax Officer, Rajasthan vs. Binani Cements & Anr.
Commr. of Police, Bombay vs. Gordhandas Bhanji
Council of Civil Service Unions vs. Minister for Civil Service
Council of Civil Service Unions vs. Minister for the Civil Service
Deep Chand vs. State of Rajasthan
Dr. Bool Chand vs. Chancellor, Kurukshetra University
Dr. Rash Lal Yadav vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.
Effort Shipping Co. Ltd. vs. Linden Management S.A.
Ethiopian Airlines vs. Ganesh Narain Saboo
Hari Vishnu Kamath vs. Syed Ahmad Ishaque
Harishankar Bagla vs. State of M. P.
Heinz India (P) Ltd. vs. State of U. P.
J. Jayalalithaa & Ors. vs. State of Karnataka
J. K. Cotton Spg. & Wvg. Mills Co. Ltd. vs. State of U. P.
K.L. Tripathi vs. State Bank of India
Kashinath Dikshita vs. Union of India & Ors.
Kaushalya Devi vs. Bachittar Singh
Lekhraj Sathramdas Lalvani vs. N.M. Shah, Deputy Custodian-cum-Managing Officer, Bombay
Liberty Oil Mills vs. Union of India
Mackinnon Mackenzie & Co. Ltd. vs. Mackinnon Employees Union
Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education vs. Paritosh Bhupesh kumar Sheth
Managing Director, ECIL vs. B. Karunakar
Maneka Gandhi vs. The Union of India & Ors.
Mohinder Singh Gill vs. Chief Election Commr.
Nagandra Nath Bora vs. Commissioner of Hills Division and Appeals Assam
Nawab khan Abbaskhan vs. State of Gujarat
Nirma Industries Limited & Anr. vs. Securities & Exchange Board of India
Oryx Fisheries Private Limited vs. Union of India & Ors.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.