Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (1.49 seconds)
Documents citing S.K. Sen vs Provincial P.W.D., State Of Bihar And ... on 4 September, 1959

Ramrao S/O Mahadeo Girhe And Ors. vs Dr. Shrikant Jichakar, M.L.C. And Ors. on 12 March, 2003

(vide S.K. Sen v. State of Bihar) . A procedure adopted by affording preliminary hearing to the parties can by no stretch of imagination could be said to be resulting in miscarriage of justice or resulting in breach or the patent injustice to any of the parties. Being so, it is difficult to accept and agree with the contention that there is no difference between issuing of "Notice" and issuing of "Notice before admission". Besides, whether there is any difference in case of "notice" and that of "notice before admission" is to be determined by reference to the exercise of powers by the Court- while passing the said order and not by merely refering to the procedural provisions in the said rules. The rules regarding procedure to be followed for action either under Article 215 of the Constitution or under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act cannot take away the inherent power of this Court. Affording opportunity to put forth its say before taking the decision to proceed against such party for Contempt of Court, is nothing but an action in conformity with the basic principles of natural justice and may always be adhered to in cases where the materials placed before the Court by the complainant though may disclose prima facie case that may not be sufficient to constitute sufficient proof to hold the opponent to be guilty of Contempt of Court. Therefore, whether the Court should issue directly notice of contempt proceedings or should opt to issue notice before admission would depend upon facts of each case and absence of provision in the said rules in that regard will not prohibit the Court from issuing notice before admission.
Bombay High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - R M Khandeparkar - Full Document

Raja Ratan Gopal Sainehar (Died) Per ... vs Rajendra Pershad And Ors. on 27 November, 2007

9. Briefly stated, the facts that gave rise to the said judgment are: The land of the claimant therein was acquired by the State, by invoking the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. The compensation was determined in the award, at Rs. 14/- per katha. In a reference made under Section 18 of the Act, the trial Court enhanced the same to Rs. 200/- per katha, through judgment dated 18-08-1961. The State filed a review, stating that certain important piece of evidence was not taken into account. The review was ordered on 26-09-1961, and the compensation was reduced from Rs. 200/- to Rs. 75/- per katha. While the State preferred an appeal to the High Court against the order dated 26-09-1961, seeking further reduction, the claimant filed a cross appeal, challenging the same order. The High Court found that there was no basis for reviewing the decree dated 18-08-1961. Therefore, it had set aside the order dated 26-09-1961. However, it proceeded to reduce the compensation from Rs. 200/- to Rs. 75 per katha, on being satisfied about the merits of the matter. The claimant carried the matter to the Supreme Court. The appeal was allowed, with the following observation:
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - L N Reddy - Full Document
1