Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 553 (3.40 seconds)
Documents citing Mahabir Prasad Santosh Kumar vs State Of U.P. And Ors on 2 April, 1970

Sh. Chaman Lal vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi on 13 January, 2010

M/s. Mahabir Prasad Santosh Kumar v. State of U.P. & others, AIR 1970 SC 1302 M/s. Dhampur Sugar (Kashipur) Ltd. v. State of Uttranchal & others, 2007 (11) SCALE 374 ruled that when public authority acts as an administrative authority with oblique motive or on an extraneous or irrelevant considerations, the aforesaid exercise would not be an exercise in accordance with law.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 211 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Kanco Enterprises Limited vs Authorised Officer Of State Bank Of ... on 6 May, 2015

In  Mahabir   Prasad   Santosh   Kumar  v.  State of U.P., while dealing with  the   U.P.   Sugar   Dealers'   Licensing  Page 58 of 115 C/SCA/6331/2015 ORDER Order   under   which   the   licence   was  cancelled,  this  Court held that  such  an   order   of   cancellation   is   quasi­ judicial and must be a speaking one.  This   Court   further   held   that   merely  giving   an   opportunity   of   hearing   is  not   enough   and   further   pointed   out  where the order is subject to appeal,  the   necessity   to   record   reason   is  even greater. The learned Judges held  that   the   recording   of   reasons   in  support   of   a   decision   on   a   disputed  claim   ensures   that   the   decision   is  not   a   result   of   caprice,   whim   or  fancy   but   was   arrived   at   after  considering the relevant law and that  the   decision   was   just.   (See   SCC   p.  768, para 7 : AIR p. 1304, para 7.)
Gujarat High Court Cites 123 - Cited by 0 - R M Chhaya - Full Document

State vs . 1. Anwar on 22 April, 2014

34. Learned Counsel for the accused referred to the cases and 155 of 161 156 FIR No. 1408/07 PS - Sultan Puri are reported as 'Bhaiyamiyan @ Jardar Khan & Anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh' AIR 2011 SC 2218; 'Pardeep @ Sonu Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)' 2011 (2) JCC 1031 (DB); 'Radhu Vs State of Madhya Pradesh' 2007 (4) JCC 2603 : (2007) 12 SCC 57; 'Shashi Chaudhary Vs. Ram Kumar' 2011 III AD (DELHI) 249; 'State Vs. Rahul' 2011 [2] JCC 701; 'Mahabir Prasad Vs. State' 76 (1998) DHC; 'Hari Chand Vs. State' 82 (1999) DLT, 356; 'Rajesh Patel Vs. State of Jharkhand' AIR 2013 SC 1497; 'Mohd.
Delhi District Court Cites 59 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

S.N. Mukherjee vs Union Of Inida on 28 August, 1990

In Mahabir Prasad Santosh Kumar v. State of U.P. and Ors. (supra) the District Magistrate had cancelled the licence granted under the U.P Sugar Dealers' Licensing Order, 1962 without giving any reason and the State Government had dismissed the appeal against the said order of the District Magistrate without recording the reasons. This Court has held: The practice of the executive authority dismissing statutory appeal against orders which prima facie seriously prejudice the rights of the aggrieved party without giving reasons is a negation of the rule of law. (P. 204) Recording of reasons in support of a decision on a disputed claim by a quasi-judicial authority ensures that the decision is reached according to law and is not the result of caprice, whim or fancy or reached on grounds of policy or expediency. A party to the dispute is ordinarily entitled to know the grounds on which the authority has rejected his claim. If the order is subject to appeal, the necessity to record reasons is greater, for without recorded reasons the appellate authority has no material on which it may determine whether the facts were properly ascertained, the relevant law was correctly applied and the decision was just. (P. 205)
Supreme Court of India Cites 37 - Cited by 1 - S C Agrawal - Full Document

Shri Om Prakash Yadav vs Union Of India : Through on 29 June, 2015

In its judgment in the case of Mahabir Prasad v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1970 SC 1302, the Supreme Court held that satisfactory decision of a disputed claim may be reached only if it be supported by the most cogent reasons that appealed to the authority. It should all the more be so where the quasi-judicial enquiry may result in deprivation of livelihood or attach a stigma to the character.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 30 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Jagat Singh vs The Asst. Commissioner And Ors. on 5 July, 2004

72.The Disciplinary Authority is obligated to pass reasoned order dealing with the contentions put forth by the delinquent. This is important as the orders are appealable and subject to scrutiny of law before the Court. The aforesaid Govt. of India instructions are supplementary not in conflict with the rules and are binding. The Apex Court in Mahavir Prasad v. State of U.P., AIR 1970 SC 1302 held as follows:
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 38 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Chairman-Cum-M.D., T.N.C.S. Corpn. ... vs K. Meerabai on 23 January, 2006

It was further submitted that the appellate authority has also not given any hearing to the employee/respondent and confirmed the order of dismissal without application of mind, but by reproducing the order of the disciplinary authority. Messrs. Mahabir Prasad Santosh Kumar vs. State of U.P. and Ors.,1970 (1) SCC 764 was relied on for this point.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 116 - A R Lakshmanan - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next