Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (1.58 seconds)
Documents citing Kapra Mazdoor Ekta Union vs Management Of M/S. Birla Cotton ... on 16 March, 2005

M/S. Haryana Suraj Malting Ltd. vs Phool Chand on 18 May, 2018

In the case of procedural review, as held in Kapra (supra), the party “... has to establish that the procedure followed by the court or the quasi-judicial authority suffered from such illegality that it vitiated the proceeding and invalidated the order made therein, inasmuch as the opposite party concerned was not heard for no fault of his, or that the matter was heard and decided on a date other than the one fixed for hearing of the matter which he could not attend for no fault of his. In such cases, therefore, the matter has to be reheard in accordance with law without going into the merit of the order passed. The order passed is liable to be recalled and reviewed not because it is found to be erroneous, but 22 because it was passed in a proceeding which was itself vitiated by an error of procedure or mistake which went to the root of the matter and invalidated the entire proceeding.
Supreme Court of India Cites 31 - Cited by 70 - K Joseph - Full Document

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs Sem Singh 39 Wps/6397/2018 V.K. Anant ... on 27 September, 2018

14. Similar is the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of Kapra Mazdoor Ekta Union vs. Management of M/s. Birla Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. & Anr. 3 in which it has been held that where a court or quasi judicial authority having jurisdiction to adjudicate on merit proceeds to do so, its judgment or order can be reviewed on merit only if the court or the quasi-judicial authority is vested with power of review by express provision or by necessary implication. The power of review is not an inherent power and must be conferred by law either expressly or by necessary implication.
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - S Agrawal - Full Document

Sunil Syal (Proprietor) vs Kamlesh Kumar Verma & Ors on 15 May, 2018

11. Having considered the facts of the present case in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kapra Mazdoor Ekta Union (supra) it is found that in fact by order dated 02.01.2014 the difference in minimum wages and wages actually paid for a period of six months has been granted by the Authority under MW Act which is reflected in para No.9 of the said order. By subsequent impugned order dated 08.07.2015 actually the Authority under MW Act has on the pretext to show jurisdiction wrongly mentioned that due to inadvertence, the arrears of the wages got calculated in the order dated 02.01.2014 for a period of one month instead of six months. The reasoning given by the Authority is far from truth, as in fact, in the order dated 02.01.2014, the Authority under MW Act has already ordered for making of the payment of the difference of the minimum wages and the wages actually paid to the respondents for a period of six months. In its order dated WP (C) 9216/2015 Page 8 of 10 02.01.2014, in column No.6 of para No.9, it has assessed the difference in the amount for one month and in column No.7, the Authority after multiplication of the amount of one month by six has awarded the amount for a period of six months. By impugned order dated 08.07.2015, the order has further multiplied the amount by six. Apparently by order dated 08.07.2015 the Authority under MW Act has reviewed its own order dated 02.01.2014 on application dated 16.01.2014 and enhanced the amount.
Delhi High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - V Goel - Full Document

M/S United Spirits Ltd. Thru' Its Senior ... vs State Of U.P. & 4 Others on 20 August, 2018

However, at the same time on the principle that every judicial or quasi-judicial authority has inherent power to recall an order passed under a mistaken belief or in violation of order of principles of natural justice, such order can be recalled by the said authority in exercise of its power for procedural review. In other words, any order passed as a result of the procedural mistake or in absence of the contesting party, can be recalled on the satisfaction of the judicial or quasi-judicial authority in its inherent power to correct the mistake committed by it. The procedural illegality, if any, committed by the quasi-judicial authority or Court which goes to the root of the matter, can be rectified by invoking power of procedural review. The observations of the Apex Court in Kapra Mazdoor Ekta Union (supra) are relevant to be quoted as under:-
Allahabad High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - S Agarwal - Full Document
1   2 Next