Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 1516 (1.68 seconds)
Documents citing State Of Orissa vs Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei & Ors on 7 February, 1967

The Collector vs K. Krishnaveni on 3 September, 2019

25. Referring to the decision of this Court in Binapani Dei (supra) wherein it was observed that when by reason of an action on the part of a statutory authority, civil or evil consequences ensue, the principles of natural http://www.judis.nic.in 34 OF 62 W.A.No.1995 of 2018 justice are required to be followed and in such an event, although no express provision is laid down in this behalf, compliance with the principles of natural justice would be implicit, the learned Judges held that by virtue of an order under Section 142 (2A) of the Act, the assessee suffers civil consequences and the order passed would be prejudicial to him and, therefore, principles of natural justice must be held to be implicit. The Court has further observed that if the assessee was put to notice, he could show that the nature of accounts is not such which would require appointment of special auditors. He could further show that what the Assessing Officer considers to be complex is, in fact, not so. It was also open to him to show that the same would not be in the interest of the revenue.
Madras High Court Cites 99 - Cited by 6 - S Manikumar - Full Document

Krishna Kr Kundu vs M/O Health And Family Welfare on 4 December, 2019

In State of Orissa v. Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei & Ors., this court held that even an administrative order which involves civil consequences must be made consistently with the rules of natural justice. The person concerned must be informed of the case, the evidence in support thereof supplied and must be given a fair opportunity to meet the case before an adverse decision is taken. Since no such opportunity was given it was held that superannuation was in violation of principles of natural justice."
Central Administrative Tribunal - Kolkata Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

L.Joy Muthamail vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 24 September, 2019

AIR 1970 SC 150 : (1970) 1 SCR 457] after referring to the observations in State of Orissa v. Dr (Miss) Binapani Dei [(1967) 2 SCR 625 : AIR 1967 SC 1269] observed as under : (SCC p. 272, para 20) “The aim of the rules of natural justice is to secure justice or to put it negatively to prevent miscarriage of justice. These rules can operate only in areas not covered by any law validly made. In other words they do not supplant the law of the land but supplement it.” These observations make it clear that if the statute, expressly or by necessary implication omits the application of the rule of natural justice, the statute will not be invalidated for this omission on the http://www.judis.nic.in 63/66 W.A.No.2905 of 2019 ground of arbitrariness."
Madras High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mohan Lal vs Himachal Pradesh State Forest ... on 1 June, 2007

Where the statute is silent and a contrary intention cannot be implied the requirement of the applicability of the rule of natural justice is read into it to ensure fairness and to protect the action from the charge of arbitrariness. Natural justice has thus secured a foothold to supplement enacted law by operating as an implied mandatory requirement thereby protecting it from the vice of arbitrariness. Courts presume this requirement in all its width as implied unless the enactment supplies indication to the contrary as in the present case. This Court in A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India AIR 1970 SC 150 : (1969) 2 SCC 262 after referring to the observations in State of Orissa v. Dr. (Ms.) Binapani Dei observed as under:
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 38 - Cited by 44 - Full Document

K.A.Shanmugasundaram vs The Director Of School Education on 23 August, 2007

In State of Orissa v. Dr.(Miss) Binapani Dei & Ors., reported in 1967(2) SCR 625, deals with the case where on the basis of an anonymous letter addressed to the Accountant General that the employee has mis-stated her age when she was admitted to service of the State. An enquiry was conducted and the employee was compulsorily retired without furnishing the copy of the report and evidence, which was collected by the authority. The Supreme Court held that without providing the copy of the report and the details of evidence collected against the employee amount to violation of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. The case relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner relates to a case of compulsory retirement and the same is not applicable to the present case, where the authority has conducted an enquiry, where the petitioner's brother and sister have participated in the enquiry.
Madras High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - S Manikumar - Full Document

Sri Liladitya Deb vs Registrar Of Firms & Another ....... ... on 29 April, 2020

To that averment, no reply was made by the forest authorities against whom the petition was filed. Granting that the order was administrative and not quasi-judicial, the order had still to be made in a manner consonant with the rules of natural justice when it affected the respondent's rights to property. This Court in the case of State of Orissa v. Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei held in dealing with an administrative order that "the rule that a party to whose prejudice the order is intended to be passed is entitled to a hearing applied alike to judicial tribunals and bodies of persons invested with authority to adjudicate upon matters involving civil consequences. It is one of the fundamental rules of our Constitutional set-up that every citizen is protected against exercise of arbitrary authority by the State or its officers". The Divisional Forest Officer in the present case set aside the proceeding of a subordinate authority and passed an order which involved the respondent in considerable loss. The order involved civil consequences. Without considering whether the order of the Divisional Forest Officer was vitiated because of irrelevant considerations, the order must be set aside on the simple ground that it was passed contrary to the basic rules of natural justice.
Orissa High Court Cites 38 - Cited by 0 - K R Mohapatra - Full Document

Babhoti Yadav Alias Vibhuti Yadav vs U.P. State Bridge Corporation Ltd. And ... on 21 April, 1999

Similar view was taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarju Prasad v. General Manager and Anr., reported in AIR 1981 SC 1481, wherein relying on the judgment in the case of State of Orissa v. Mrs. Binapani Devi (supra), it has been held that the date of birth without notice and without giving opportunity to the appellant cannot be altered to the disadvantage and prejudice of an employee because an administrative order which involves civil consequence must be made in conformity with the rule of natural justice which at its lowest minimum requires notice and opportunity to the person affected thereby.
Allahabad High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - S R Alam - Full Document

Dipti Ranjan Sahoo And vs State Of Odisha & Others .... Opposite ... on 27 January, 2026

In State of Orissa v. Binapani Dei [State of Orissa v. Binapani Dei, AIR 1967 SC 1269], a two- Judge Bench of this Court held that every authority which has the power to take punitive or damaging action has a duty to give a reasonable opportunity to be heard. This Court further held that an administrative action which involves civil consequences must be made consistent with the rules of natural justice : (AIR p. 1271, para 9) "9. ... The rule that a party to whose prejudice an order is intended to be passed is entitled to a hearing applies alike to judicial tribunals and bodies of persons invested with authority to adjudicate upon matters involving civil consequences. It is one of the fundamental rules of our constitutional set-up that every citizen is protected against exercise of arbitrary authority by the State or its officers. Duty to Page 7 of 11 // 8 // act judicially would therefore arise from the very nature of the function intended to be performed : it need not be shown to be super-added. If there is power to decide and determine to the prejudice of a person, duty to act judicially is implicit in the exercise of such power. If the essentials of justice be ignored and an order to the prejudice of a person is made, the order is a nullity. That is a basic concept of the rule of law and importance thereof transcends the significance of a decision in any particular case."
Orissa High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - B P Satapathy - Full Document

Dipti Ranjan Sahoo And vs State Of Odisha & Others .... Opposite ... on 27 January, 2026

In State of Orissa v. Binapani Dei [State of Orissa v. Binapani Dei, AIR 1967 SC 1269], a two- Judge Bench of this Court held that every authority which has the power to take punitive or damaging action has a duty to give a reasonable opportunity to be heard. This Court further held that an administrative action which involves civil consequences must be made consistent with the rules of natural justice : (AIR p. 1271, para 9) "9. ... The rule that a party to whose prejudice an order is intended to be passed is entitled to a hearing applies alike to judicial tribunals and bodies of persons invested with authority to adjudicate upon matters involving civil consequences. It is one of the fundamental rules of our constitutional set-up that every citizen is protected against exercise of arbitrary authority by the State or its officers. Duty to Page 7 of 11 // 8 // act judicially would therefore arise from the very nature of the function intended to be performed : it need not be shown to be super-added. If there is power to decide and determine to the prejudice of a person, duty to act judicially is implicit in the exercise of such power. If the essentials of justice be ignored and an order to the prejudice of a person is made, the order is a nullity. That is a basic concept of the rule of law and importance thereof transcends the significance of a decision in any particular case."
Orissa High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - B P Satapathy - Full Document

Manoranjan Mohapatra vs State Of Odisha & Ors. .... Opp. Parties on 31 March, 2026

In State of Orissa v. Binapani Dei [State of Orissa v. Binapani Dei, AIR 1967 SC 1269], a two- Judge Bench of this Court held that every authority which has the power to take punitive or damaging action has a duty to give a reasonable opportunity to be heard. This Court further held that an administrative action which involves civil consequences must be made consistent with the rules of natural justice : (AIR p. 1271, para 9) "9. ... The rule that a party to whose prejudice an order is intended to be passed is entitled to a hearing applies alike to judicial tribunals and bodies of persons invested with authority to adjudicate upon matters involving civil consequences. It is one of the fundamental rules of Page 8 of 11 // 9 // our constitutional set-up that every citizen is protected against exercise of arbitrary authority by the State or its officers. Duty to act judicially would therefore arise from the very nature of the function intended to be performed : it need not be shown to be super-added. If there is power to decide and determine to the prejudice of a person, duty to act judicially is implicit in the exercise of such power. If the essentials of justice be ignored and an order to the prejudice of a person is made, the order is a nullity. That is a basic concept of the rule of law and importance thereof transcends the significance of a decision in any particular case."
Orissa High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - B P Satapathy - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next