Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.90 seconds)
Documents citing G.S. Harnal vs Union Of India And Ors. on 28 May, 1971

Mis Sri Krishna Tiles & Potteries ... vs The Company Law Board And Ors. on 23 November, 1978

(12) In fact, it is well settled that no hearing is given to a person in a preliminary enquiry which is to lead to a regular enquiry or action against such a person during which a full hearing would be available to him. This conclusion was arrived at by a Division Bench of this court in G. S. Harnal v Union of India and others, 2nd (1971) 2 Delhi 129(2), at 137, .relying upon Amalendu Ghosh v District Traffic Superintendent, North Eastern Railway, , Champak Lal v. Union of India, , State of U.P. v. Akbar Ali Khan, , and Parry-Jones v. Law Society, (1968) 2 Wlr 397(6).
Delhi High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Universal Music India Ltd. And Anr. vs Union Of India (Uoi) on 7 September, 2006

(v) In fact, it is well settled that no hearing is given to a person in a preliminary inquiry which is to lead to a regular inquiry or action against such a person during which a full hearing would be available to him. The Bench noticed that this conclusion was arrived at by a Division Bench of this Court and placed upon G.S. Harmal v. Union of India 2nd (1971) 2 Delhi 129 at 137 wherein reliance was upon Amalender Ghosh v. District Traffic Superintendent, North Eastern Railway ; Champaklal Chimanlal Shal v. Union of India ; State of U.P. v. Akbar Ali Khan and Parry-Jones v. Law Society [1968] 2 WLR 397 (CA).
Delhi High Court Cites 115 - Cited by 1 - G Mittal - Full Document

Vaishnav Vijay vs State Of Kerala on 27 May, 2025

5. The nature of the offence in which the petitioner was involved and was compounded way back in the year 2023 is not such that it can be said that the petitioner's moral turpitude was in question. The offence was neither heinous nor very serious in nature. Respectfully following the Supreme Court in the aforesaid two judgments and the judgment of this court in Harilal S (supra), I am of the considered view that the impugned order in Ext.P5 whereby the University has been directed to dispense with the services of the petitioner on the ground of non-disclosure of the petty offence is wholly unjustified, arbitrary and illegal and against the dictum of the judicial pronouncements mentioned above.
Kerala High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - D K Singh - Full Document
1