Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 286 (1.66 seconds)
Documents citing Bahadursinh Lakhubhai Gohil vs Jagdishbhai M. Kamalia And Ors on 17 December, 2003

Feedback Infra Private Ltd vs State Of J&K & Ors on 11 August, 2014

43. In the instant case, the respondents, before taking the impugned decisions, have not issued any notice to the petitioner. Having orally asked the petitioner to explain its position, when the decision of the High Court of Chhattisgarh dated 04.09.2013, setting aside the debarment order, was brought to their notice, they, instead of applying their mind to these developments, axiomatically, hurried through the matter and took the impugned decisions on the very following day, i.e., on 05.09.2013. No reason, whatsoever, is gatherable from the records or the reply filed by the respondents which could lend any support, muchless legal, to the impugned decisions and actions of the respondents. The decision of the Supreme Court in V. K. Ashokan v. CCE; Aslam Mohammad Merchant v. Competent Authority; Bahadursingh Lakhubhai Gohil v. Jagdishbhai M. Kamalia; and Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commr., (supra), as extracted hereinabove, squarely fit the bill, inasmuch, firstly, the respondents did not afford an opportunity of hearing, muchless a reasonable and effective hearing, to the petitioner; secondly, the Contract Committee-1 took all the decisions in its meeting held on 05.09.2013 without application of mind to the fact that the debarment order dated 22.03.2013 stood quashed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh on 04.09.2013 which fact, undeniably, was brought to the notice of respondent no.4 on the same day; thirdly, even after service of the copy of the judgment dated 04.09.2013 and holding of meetings by the petitioners representatives with the respondents bringing to their knowledge all the relevant facts, the respondents, in implementation of the decisions of the Contract Committee-1 dated 05.09.2013, re-tendered the Project; fourthly, and thereafter, issued the impugned show cause notice to the petitioner, again without application of mind. In light of these facts, I am convinced that, any representation that may be made by the petitioner in response to the impugned show cause notice would not really yield any fruitful purpose. The issuance of the impugned show cause notice, therefore, is a mere eye wash. Secondly, the decisions taken on 05.09.2013 and the show cause notice issued on 25.09.2013 are outcome of the sense of hastily rushing through the matter on the part of the respondents, that too, to mention it at the sake of repetition, without application of mind by the competent authority to the facts of the case.
Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Rajeev Ranjan vs Uoi & Others Through on 29 January, 2015

"32. Ordinarily, a deputationist has no legal right to continue in the post...... "When the tenure of deputation is specified, despite a deputationist not having an indefeasible right to hold the said post, ordinarily the term of deputation should not be curtailed except on such just grounds as, for example, unsuitability or unsatisfactory performance. But, even where the tenure is not specified, an order of reversion can be questioned when the same is mala fide. An action taken in a post haste manner also indicates malice. [See Bahadursinh Lakhubhai Gohil Vs. Jagdishbhai M. Kamalia and Others, (2004) 2 SCC 65, para 25]"
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 16 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Dilip Singh Shaktawat vs Uoi & Others Through on 29 January, 2015

"32. Ordinarily, a deputationist has no legal right to continue in the post...... "When the tenure of deputation is specified, despite a deputationist not having an indefeasible right to hold the said post, ordinarily the term of deputation should not be curtailed except on such just grounds as, for example, unsuitability or unsatisfactory performance. But, even where the tenure is not specified, an order of reversion can be questioned when the same is mala fide. An action taken in a post haste manner also indicates malice. [See Bahadursinh Lakhubhai Gohil Vs. Jagdishbhai M. Kamalia and Others, (2004) 2 SCC 65, para 25]"
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Poulus Tirkey vs Railway on 13 April, 2018

(i) The authority has issued the transfer order on the dictates of an outsider. He cited judgments in the case of Bahadur Singh Lakhubhai Gohil Vs. Jagdishbhai M. Kamaila & Ors. reported in 2004(2) SCC 65 and in the case of Vinod Kumar Singh Vs. State of Bihar 2008(1) PLJR 547 to the effect that if any decision is taken by the statutory authority on suggestion of a person who has no statutory role to play the same would be ultra vires.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Patna Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Rakesh Kumar Verma vs Jawaharlal Nehru University & Anr. on 3 May, 2019

50. The decision in Bahadursinh Lakhubhai Gohil v. Jagdishbhai M. Kamalia (supra) was relied upon by Mr. Venugopal in support of his contention that the impugned decision repatriating the Appellant to the office of the CAG was taken „post haste‟ and was vitiated by mala fides. In LPA No.159/2018 Page 30 of 32 the present case, although there was no specific agenda item to consider the case of the Appellant‟s continuation in JNU as Finance Officer, there is nothing to indicate that the decision was taken, „post haste‟ in the manner suggested by the Appellant. The Court is not impressed with the attempt by the Appellant to link of the decisions taken by him regarding withholding of sums from the salary of Dr. Neelima Mondal as triggering the decision to prematurely repatriate him to his parent cadre.
Delhi High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - S Muralidhar - Full Document

M/S Ritebanc Green Agro Solutions Pvt ... vs Central Bank Of India on 7 August, 2023

77. There is a communication dated 25.05.2017 informing the authority that it has been forwarded to the higher authorities for their consideration which means that there is continuity of communication between the petitioners and the Bank. At this stage, i.e. while reviewing the decision of the first committee, again certain facts were taken into consideration and notice dated 13.08.2021 was given to all concern enclosing the copy of the order of the empowered committee. Thus, no prejudice is caused to the petitioners. Lot of emphasis is placed on the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Bahadur Singh Lakkhubai Gohil Vs. Jagdishbhai M. Kamalia & Ors. (supra), to emphasize that there was no application of mind. Because the term used by the Committee is 'hereby approved', but careful reading of the said judgment and specifically paragraph 26 reveals that decision taken by a statutory authority at the behest or on the suggestion of a person who has no statutory role to play, the same would be ultra vires. In the present case, as discussed above, specific role has been assigned to the Bank/Financial Institutions in clause 2.5 of the Master Circular and therefore, that role being assigned by the RBI, their initial W.P. No. 13194 of 2022 43 action of identifying wilful defaulters as provided in Clause 2.1.3 of the Master Circular, when examined in terms of Clause 2.4 which talks of End-use of Funds and provides that "in cases of project financing, the banks / FIs seek to ensure 'end use' of funds by, inter alia, obtaining certification from the Chartered Accountants for the purpose. In case of short-term corporate / clean loans, such an approach ought to be supplemented by 'due diligence' on the part of lenders themselves, and to the extent possible, such loans should be limited to only those borrowers whose integrity and reliability are above board. The banks and FIs, therefore, should not depend entirely on the certificates issued by the Chartered Accountants but strengthen their internal controls and the Credit Risk Management System to enhance the quality of their loan portfolio.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 1 - V Agarwal - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next