Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 423 (2.82 seconds)
Documents citing Charan Lal Sahu Etc. Etc vs Union Of India And Ors on 22 December, 1989

Chaman Lal Verma vs Union Of India & Ors on 3 November, 2014

9. It is a settle law that one must approach the court with clean hands. During the course of the arguments, counsel for the defendants no.2 and 3 pleaded that the plaintiff preferred an appeal against the order dated 2/5 Chaman Lal Verma vs. Union of India 22.05.2014 before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court as the advance copy of the same was supplied to him. But, he is not aware about the fate of the same. In reply, counsel for the plaintiff admitted that the plaintiff filed the appeal before the Registry, Hon'ble Delhi High Court in July, 2014, but did not pursue the same and it remained at that level only. The plaintiff has not disclosed the said material fact in the present application. This fact also belies the plea of the plaintiff that he could not file the application in time due to his illness as well as illness of his wife. As such, the plaintiff has not approached the court with clean hands.
Delhi District Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Alaka Saraogi vs Anil Nahata & Ors on 20 July, 2009

If the Court has to declare a particular action as representative it has to see whether there is community of interest. Community of interest does not mean same cause of action. By community of interest it is meant that the interests of the plaintiffs or the defendants are common and inseparable and that there is no distinguishing feature in the case of any of the plaintiffs or any of the defendants as the case may be. The Supreme Court has recognised such principle in the case of Charan Lal Sahu - Vs. - Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 1480 and Union Carbide Corporation - Vs - Union of India, AIR 1992 SC 248. In this case, the disputes which were sought to be resolved by the arbitrator was not a common dispute involving parties to the arbitration agreement in question. Here each and every party to the agreement for sale of shares of the said company had an individual interest. Each and every member of the group representing the Nahatas or the Saraogi in the arbitration proceeding had distinct individual interests. By virtue of the arbitration agreement dispute from those individual interests and were being resolved by the arbitrator. Hence, the proceding before the arbitrator was not representative. It has been specifically recited in the body of the compromise that the appellant's group had authorised the appellant No. 17 to enter into the settlement on their behalf. Up to the stage of settlement the respondent No. 17, Mohanlal Saraogi had prosecuted the arbitration on behalf of the appellant's group and at no point of time was there any denial of his authority.
Calcutta High Court Cites 35 - Cited by 0 - I P Mukerji - Full Document

The Indian Science Congress ... vs The Union Of India & Ors on 2 April, 2025

Facts of this case and provisions of Section 8 and Section 9 of the said Act of 1961 since found to be relevant by this court in altering Rules & Regulations and Bye-Laws of said association, doctrine of necessity as enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment reported in (1990) 1 SCC 613 (Charan Lal 35 Sahu vs. Union of India) does not come in aid of the respondent authorities.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - S Bhattacharyya - Full Document

Aneuser Busch Inbev India Limitied vs Commissioner (Excise, Entertainment ... on 19 December, 2019

―If one accepts the contention that a defect of natural justice in the trial body can be cured by the presence of natural justice in the appellate body, this has the result of depriving the member of his right of appeal from the expelling body. If the rules and the law combine to give the member the right to a fair trial and the right of appeal, why should he be told that he ought to be satisfied with an unjust trial and a fair appeal? Even if the appeal is treated as a hearing de novo, the member is being stripped of his right to appeal to another body from the effective decision to expel him. I cannot think that natural justice is satisfied by a WP(C) 9602/2019 Page 41 process whereby an unfair trial, though not resulting in a valid expulsion, will nevertheless have the effect of depriving the member of his right of appeal when a valid decision to expel him is subsequently made. Such a deprivation would be a powerful result to be achieved by what in law is a mere nullity; and it is no mere triviality that might be justified on the ground that natural justice does not mean perfect justice. As a general rule, at all events, I hold that a failure of natural justice in the trial body cannot be cured by a sufficiency of natural justice in an appellate body.‖ The view taken by Megarry, J. was followed by the Ontario High Court in Canada in Re Cardinal and Board of Commissioners of Police of City of Cornwall, [(1974) 42 D.L.R. (3d) 323]. The Supreme Court of New Zealand was similarly inclined in Wislang v. Medical Practitioners Disciplinary Committee, [(1974) 1 N.Z.L.R. 29] and so was the Court of Appeal of New Zealand in Reid v. Rowley [(1977) 2 N.Z.L.R. 472].‖[(at pp. 1065-1066)] This judgment was the subject matter of comment in Union Carbide Corporation v. Union of India, [1991] Supp (1) SCR 251, where this Court held, following the judgment in Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India, (1990) 1 SCC 613, that non-compliance with the obligation to issue notices to persons effected by the Bhopal gas leak did not, for this reason alone, vitiate the settlement that was entered into with Union Carbide by the Government on their behalf.
Delhi High Court Cites 40 - Cited by 2 - N Chawla - Full Document

Santosh Kumar Roy And Others Etc. vs State Of West Bengal And Others on 17 February, 1997

In Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India while considering the case for grant of compensation in terms of Bhopal das Disaster (Processing of Claims) Act, the Apex Court, inter alia, held that the principles of natural justice have no application as the Central Government was not judging any claim but was fighting and advancing the claims of the victims. In Estate Manager, Estate Directorate Ex-Officio Deputy Secretary, Housing Departmentv. Dilip Kumar Dey being P.M.A.T. No. 3882 of 1995 reported in 1996 (2) Cal HN 533 this Court has held that were the provisions of Section 3 of the said Act applies, principles of natural justice are not required to be complied with.
Calcutta High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 1 - S B Sinha - Full Document

All India Anna Dravida vs The Chief Election Commissioner on 25 March, 2014

It has been stated: To do a great right after all, it is permissible sometimes to do a little wrong. (Per Mukharji, C.J. in Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India, (1990) 1 SCC 613, SCC at p.705, para 124.) While interpreting legal provisions, a court of law cannot be unmindful of the hard realities of life. In our opinion, the approach of the court in dealing with such cases should be pragmatic rather than pedantic, realistic rather than doctrinaire, functional rather than formal and practical rather than precedential. * * *
Madras High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 0 - M M Sundresh - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next