Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

PAVAI AMMAL VAIYAPURI EDUCATION TRUST versus GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS.

Decided
21 September 1994
Judges listed
B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, S.C. SEN (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Hearing Adjourned

Citations

Official
[1994] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 738 · 1994 INSC 408
Also cited as
  • AIR 1995 SC 63 (2 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Not shown
1 other citation string that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.

Cited by

Cited in 1 other Supreme Court judgment we hold.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Solicitor General for the respondents, we are of the opinion that the question of applicability of the Scheme in Unnikrishnan, J.P .. & Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., [1993) 1 S.C.C. 645 to the.petitioner-college requires further consideration for which purpose we are posting the Special Leave Petitions for final hearing in November, 1994. We direct that pending further orders status quo shall continue for the current year, i.e., 1994-95.

p. 739, margin C

It is, however, directed that the college shall admit students strictly in the order of merit from among those applying to it for admission. The merit shall be determined only and exclusively on the basis of marks obtained in the qualifying examination. This obligation, in our opinion, is inherent in the permission for establishment granted by the Bar Council of India and the affiliation granted by the university. The very fact that the university is a<lmitting this college, a private body, to its privileges means that the private body must subject itself to the discipline inherent in such affiliation. It is unreasonable to presume that fairness is not inherent in the grant of permission to establish and more so in the grant of affiliation. Hence, the above direction.

p. 739, margin E

The petitioner-college shall prepare a list of candidates applying to it for admission alongwith the marks obtained by them in the qualifying examination as well as a list of the candidates selected by it for admission along with the marks obtained by them in the qualifying examination. Both the said lists shall be submitted within ten days of the finalisation of the admissions to the Bar Council of India, to the Madras University and to the Government of Madras. It shall be open to these authorities to verify the correctness of the said list and if they find that there has been any departure from the direction imposed hereinabove, it shall be open to any them to bring the same to the notice of this Court.

pp. 739–740, margin G

Liberty to mention.

p. 740, margin B

The Special Leave Petition shall be posted for final hearing on November 11, 1994, G.N. Petition Pending.

p. 740, margin B