Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 233 (2.30 seconds)
Documents citing S. Govinda Menon vs The Union Of India & Anr on 2 February, 1967

R. Abdul Azeez vs State Of Tamil Nadu And Anr. on 13 June, 1989

9. The next point urged is that in a judicial proceeding, assuming that the appellant had committed a mistake without adverting to the relevant provision of law or without appreciating the scope of the law, he cannot be called upon to explain the same since against an incorrect order, there are remedies by way of appeal and revision available under the Act; such an order could be corrected only in the manner known to law; of course, it is a different matter if motivation is alleged as against the appellant; that is not so in this case; the decision reported as Govinda Menon v. Union of India would have no application to the facts of this case; therefore, the rulings mentioned by the learned single Judge cannot be said to be correct.
Madras High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 2 - S Mohan - Full Document

P. R. Nayak vs Union Of India on 7 December, 1971

In S. Govinda Menon's case (supra), therefore, the order of suspension was held also to be the order initiating the disciplinary proceedings No question was raised in that case about the legality of the composite order both initiating disciplinary proceedings and suspending Govinda Menon. But be that as it may, we find ourselves with all respect unable to agree with the view taken in Tarak Nath Ghosh's case (supra).
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 66 - I D Dua - Full Document

Tamil Nadu Tobacco Co. Ltd. vs Union Of India on 2 August, 1991

So it cannot be put as a wide proposition that whenever cross-examination has been refused, it will be a violation of the principles of natural justice. In my view, on the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court cannot presume that the first respondent is going to pass an adverse order on the basis of the show cause notice and the explanation given by the petitioners. Though the learned senior counsel foresees, that there will be an adjudication against the petitioners, just for that, this Court cannot presume so. Apart from that, in my view, a writ of prohibition should not be issued in such a case where the adjudication proceedings is over and this Court should not interdict with the proceedings. The case referred to by the learned senior counsel reported in S. Govinda Menon v. Union of India and Another deals with the principles for the issue of a writ of prohibition. In that case, the Supreme Court was concerned with a writ petition filed by a member of the Indian Administrative Service against certain disciplinary proceedings taken against him.
Madras High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

K. Someswara Kumar vs High Court Of Andhra Pradesh Through Its ... on 19 March, 1996

20. The law is thus clearly laid by the Apex Court as regards the circumstances under which judicial functioning of judicial officers attracts disciplinary scrutiny and punitive action. The resultant position is that the conduct of a judicial officer in exercise of his judicial functions can be the subject matter of disciplinary action. We also have to observe that judicial officers exercise sovereign judicial power of the State and they hold an office of trust. Judicial probity is of utmost importance and it is on this bed-rock that public confidence rests. As observed by the Supreme Court in the first All India Judges' Association case, quoting from Chief Justice Burger of the American Supreme Court:
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 26 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

R. Abdul Azeez vs State Of Tamil Nadu, Board Of Revenue ... on 13 June, 1989

9. The next point urged is that in a judicial proceeding, assuming that the appellant had committed a mistake without adverting to the relevant provision of law or without appreciating the scope of the law, he cannot be called upon to explain the same since against an incorrect order there are remedies by way of appeal and revision available under the Act; such an order could be corrected only in that matter known to law; of course, it is a different matter if motivation is alleged as against the appellant; that is not so in this case; the decision reported in Govinda Menon, v. Union of India (supra), would have no application to the facts of this case; therefore, the rulings mentioned by the learned single Judge cannot be said to be correct.
Madras High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 1 - S Mohan - Full Document

Sri Asim Chatterjee vs The State Of West Bengal And Ors. on 24 June, 2004

37. Mr. Roy referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of S. Govinda Menaon v. Union of India (supra) in support of his aforesaid contention and submits that even if the petitioner was not subject to the administrative control of the respondent bank during the period in question at the relevant time but his act or omission could very much from the subject matter of disciplinary proceedings. I am unable to accept the aforesaid contention of the learned counsel of the respondent bank.
Calcutta High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - P K Chattopadhyay - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next