Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 161 (1.37 seconds)

Swadeshi Cotton Mills vs Union Of India on 13 January, 1981

Whether the report should be furnished or not must therefore, depend in every individual case on the merits of that case. We have no doubt that in the instant case, non-disclosure of the report of the Investigating Committee has not caused any prejudice whatsoever to the appellants. (emphasis added) It will be seen from what has been extracted above that in Keshav Mills case, this Court did not lay it down as an invariable rule that where a full investigation after 'notice to the owner of the industrial undertaking has been held under Section 15, the owner is never entitled on grounds of natural justice, to a copy of the investigation report and to an opportunity of making a representation about the action that the Government proposes to take on the basis of that report. On the contrary, it was clearly said that this rule of natural justice will apply at that stage in cases "where unless the report-is given the party concerned cannot make any effective representation about the action that Government takes or proposes to take on the basis of that report." It was held that the application or non-application of this rule depends on the facts and circumstances of the particular case. In the facts of that case, it was found that the non-disclosure of the investigation report had not caused any prejudice whatever because the Company were "aware all along that as a result of the report of the Investigating Committee the Company's undertaking was going to be taken (over) by Government", and had full opportunities, to make all possible representations before the Government against the proposed take-over of the Mill.
Supreme Court of India Cites 49 - Cited by 542 - O C Reddy - Full Document

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

23. The shift now is to a broader notion of “fairness” or “fair procedure” in the administrative action. As far as the administrative officers are concerned, the duty is not so much to act judicially as to act fairly (See : Keshav Mills Co. Ltd. v. Union of India [(1973) 1 SCC 380, 387: (1973) 3 SCR 22, 30] ; Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner [(1978) 1 SCC 405, 434: (1978) 2 SCR 272] ; Swadeshi Cotton Mills v. Union of India [(1981) 1 SCC 664: (1981) 2 SCR 533] and M.S. Nally Bharat Engineering Co. Ltd. v. State of Bihar [(1990) 2 SCC 48] .) For this concept of fairness, adjudicative settings are not necessary, nor it is necessary to have lis inter partes. There need not be any struggle between two opposing parties giving rise to a ‘lis’.
Madras High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dr. Shiv Dayal Verma vs The State Of Bihar And Ors on 8 July, 2019

In Kranti Associates Private Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Masood Ahmed Khan & Ors., reported in (2010) 9 SCC 496, the Supreme Court, after referring to various decisions of the Supreme Court in Keshav Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Union of India, (1973) Patna High Court CWJC No.4106 of 2018 dt.08-07-2019 10/15 1 SCC 380; Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. Shyam Sunder Jhunjhunwala, AIR 1961 SC 1669; Bhagat Raja Vs. Union of India, AIR 1967 SC 1606; Mahabir Prasad Santosh Kumar Vs. State of U.P., (1970) 1 SCC 764; Travancore Rayon Ltd. Vs. Union of India, (1969) 3 SCC 868; Woolcombers of India Ltd. Vs. Workers Union, (1974) 3 SCC 318; Union of India Vs. Mohan Lal Capoor, (1973) 2 SCC 836; Siemens Engg. And Mfg. Co. of India Ltd. Vs. Union of India, (1976) 2 SCC 981; Menka Gandhi Vs. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248; Rama Varma Bharathan Thampuram Vs. State of Kerala, (1979) 4 SCC 782; Gurdial Singh Fijji Vs. State of Punjab, (1979) 2 SCC 368; Bombay Oil Industries (P) Ltd. Vs. Union of India, (1984) 1 SCC 141; Star Enterprises Vs. City and Industrial Development Corpn. of Maharashtra Ltd., (1990) 3 SCC 280; S.N. Mukherjee Vs. Union of India, (1990) 4 SCC 594, has summarized the importance of any order to Patna High Court CWJC No.4106 of 2018 dt.08-07-2019 11/15 be a speaking one.
Patna High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - A Kumar - Full Document

U.P. Handicraft Development & ... vs Daya Ram Yadav & 3 Others on 5 September, 2019

(11) The learned Writ Court, on considering the aforesaid facts and placing reliance upon Keshav Mill Co. Ltd. Vs. Union of India : 1973 (1) SCC 380, K.I. Shephard Vs. Union of India : 1987 (4) SCC 431, A.K. Kraipak & others Vs. Union of India & others : (1996) 2 SCC 262, Kumaon Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd. Vs. Girja Shankar Pant : 2001 (1) SCC 182 and State of Tamil Nadu Vs. K. Shyam Sundar : 2011 (8) SCC 737, observed that it was incumbent upon the Corporation to come out with a VRS containing clear terms and conditions, specifically informing its employees the benefits which they would get under the VRS. It can neither be expected from employees on the VRS forms and then decide the conditions of VRS to their detriment.
Allahabad High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ramnaresh Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 25 February, 2020

As a matter of fact this Court in the case of .Keshav Mills Co. Ltd. v. Union of India[1973 (1) SCC 380] upon reliance on the attributes of the doctrine as above stated as below: (SCC p.387, para 8) ''8. The second question, however, as to what are the principles of natural justice that should regulate an administrative act or order is a much more difficult one to answer. We do not think it either feasible or even desirable to lay down any fixed or rigorous yard-stick in this manner. The concept of natural justice cannot be put into a straight jacket. It is futile, therefore, to look for definitions or standards of natural justice from various decisions and then try to apply them to the facts of any given case. The only essential point that has to be kept in mind in all cases is that the person concerned should have a reasonable opportunity of presenting his case and that the administrative authority concerned should act fairly, impartially and reasonably. Where administrative officers are concerned, the duty is not so much to act judicially as to act fairly. See, for instance, the observations of Lord Parker in H.K. (an infant), In re (1967) 2 QB 617.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 3 - G S Ahluwalia - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next