Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 342 (8.12 seconds)
Documents citing Manak Lal vs Dr. Prem Chand on 6 February, 1957

State Of Punjab vs Central Administrative Tribunal Chd ... on 6 November, 2020

19. One of the earliest judgments on the subject is Manak Lal v. Prem Chand Singhvi [AIR 1957 SC 425] . In that case, this Court considered the question whether the decision taken by the High Court on the allegation of professional misconduct levelled against the appellant was vitiated due to bias of the Chairman of the Tribunal constituted for holding inquiry into the allegation. The appellant alleged that the Chairman had appeared for the complainant in an earlier proceeding and, thus, he was disqualified to judge his conduct. This Court held that by not having taken any objection against the participation of the Chairman of the Tribunal in the inquiry held against him, the appellant will be deemed to have waived his objection. Some of the observations made in the judgment are extracted below: (AIR pp. 431-32, paras 8-9) "8. ... If, in the present case, it appears that the appellant knew all the facts about the alleged disability of Shri Chhangani and was also aware that he could effectively request the learned Chief Justice to nominate
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 63 - Cited by 1 - J Singh - Full Document

Arwachin Bharti Bhawan vs The Directorate Of Education on 3 March, 2000

26. In "Vijay Singh & Wadia Institute of Himalayan", 1989 4 SLR 667, the writ petitioner before this Court was working as Administrative Officer in the respondent institute. A disciplinary action was taken against him and order of demotion was passed. One of the points urged by the petitioner was that the Director, who was a prosecution witness in the inquiry proceedings, participated in the deliberations of the Disciplinary Committee, which imposed punishment of demotion on the petitioner. Following the principles laid down in "Manak Lal Vs. Dr.Prem Chand Singhvi & Others", , this Court allowed the writ petition. Here, the statutory obligation of constitution of a disciplinary committee was not involved.
Delhi High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 1 - K Ramamoorthy - Full Document

Dr. Subramanian Swamy vs J. Jayalalitha And Ors. on 15 November, 1993

43. We have, with reference to a decision in Manak Lal's case A.I.R. 1957 S.C. 425 : 1957 M.L.J. (Crl.) 254 : 1957 S.C.A. 719 : 1957 S.C.R. 575, pointed out that the question as to whether, a judge, tribunal or an authority to act judicially is likely to be biased or there is a possibility of bias, is always a question of fact to be decided on the facts and circumstances of each case. Therefore, applying the tests laid down in the various authoritative pronouncements, referred to above, we have no doubt in holding that in the facts and circumstances of the case, apprehension of bias entertained by the writ petitioner that she is not likely to get a fair and just decision at the hands of the Chief Election Commissioner, Mr. T.N. Seshan, on the petition dated 2.10.1992 filed by the second respondent is reasonable and it is well founded. Accordingly, we agree with the learned single judge on this point and answer Point No. 2 in the affirmative.
Madras High Court Cites 41 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Justice P.D. Dinakaran vs Hon'Ble Judges Inquiry Committee & Ors on 5 July, 2011

In Manak Lal v. Dr. Prem Chand Singhvi (supra), this Court held that the constitution of the Tribunal was vitiated due to bias because 74 Chairman of the Tribunal had appeared against the appellant in a case but declined to nullify the action taken against him on the recommendations of the Tribunal on the ground that he will be deemed to have waived the right to raise objection of bias. Some of the observations made in that case are extracted below:
Supreme Court of India Cites 57 - Cited by 57 - G S Singhvi - Full Document

Spml Infra Limited vs Power Grid Corporation Of India Limited on 27 November, 2024

In Chennai Metro Rail Limited(Supra)it was specifically inter alia held that this view is in accord with the long line of decisions of the Supreme Court rendered in the context of reasonable apprehension of bias by courts and quasi-judicial authorities starting from Manak Lal v. Dr. Prem Chand (1957) 1 SCR 575 to raise the issue at the earliest opportunity before same the forum. Thus, the issue of bias has to be raised first before the same tribunal at the earliest opportunity. CONCLUSION
Delhi High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 0 - D K Sharma - Full Document

Ram Bilas Dwivedi And Ors. vs State Of U.P. And Anr. on 10 May, 1989

9. Manak Lal v. Dr. Prem Chand Singhvi, AIR 1957 SC 425 was a case where their Lordships of Supreme Court were considering the scope of Sections 11 and 12 of Bar Councils Act and Sections 526 and 556 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (old) and it was held that judges should be able to act impartially, objectively and without any bias. In such cases the test is not whether in fact a bias has affected the judgment; the test always is and must be whether a litigant could reasonably apprehend that a bias attributable to a member of the tribunal might have operated against him in the final decision of the Tribunal. This case also does not help the applicant in as much as in the instant case at least 4 dates were given for arguments as indicated above but the applicants on one pretext or the other got the case adjourned. Under these circumstances no reasonable or prudent person could apprehend that he would not get fair arid impartial trial from the Court.
Allahabad High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Adarsh Ranka vs Union Of India & Ors. on 7 February, 2025

The same principle has also been accepted by this Court in Manak Lal v. Dr Prem Chand [1957 SCR 575 : AIR 1957 SC 425] . This Court has laid down that the test is not whether in fact, a bias has affected the judgment; the test always is and must be whether a litigant could reasonably apprehend that a bias attributable to a member of the tribunal might have operated against him in the final decision of the tribunal. It is in this sense that it is often said that justice must not only be done but must also appear to be done.
Delhi High Court Cites 293 - Cited by 0 - Y Varma - Full Document

S R B C And Co Llp vs Union Of India And Anr on 7 February, 2025

The same principle has also been accepted by this Court in Manak Lal v. Dr Prem Chand [1957 SCR 575 : AIR 1957 SC 425] . This Court has laid down that the test is not whether in fact, a bias has affected the judgment; the test always is and must be whether a litigant could reasonably apprehend that a bias attributable to a member of the tribunal might have operated against him in the final decision of the tribunal. It is in this sense that it is often said that justice must not only be done but must also appear to be done.
Delhi High Court Cites 293 - Cited by 0 - Y Varma - Full Document

Vinayak Pujare vs Union Of India & Anr. on 7 February, 2025

The same principle has also been accepted by this Court in Manak Lal v. Dr Prem Chand [1957 SCR 575 : AIR 1957 SC 425] . This Court has laid down that the test is not whether in fact, a bias has affected the judgment; the test always is and must be whether a litigant could reasonably apprehend that a bias attributable to a member of the tribunal might have operated against him in the final decision of the tribunal. It is in this sense that it is often said that justice must not only be done but must also appear to be done.
Delhi High Court Cites 293 - Cited by 0 - Y Varma - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next