Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 173 (1.10 seconds)
Documents citing Government Of Mysore & Ors vs J. V. Bhat, Etc. Etc on 14 October, 1974

Besant Nagar Residents vs Madras Metropolitan Development ... on 20 April, 1990

Even if the Statute itself does not prescribe the hearing, it is open to the Court to incorporate the principles of natural justice as has been pointed out in A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India in Government of Mysore v. J.V. Bhat and in Swadeshi Cotton Mills v. Union of India . A reference...to a passage 'Administrative Law by Prof. De. Smith is worth mentioning and it is to the following effect;
Madras High Court Cites 35 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Jagnnath Hanumant Sonawane vs Slum Rehabilitation Authority on 11 May, 2012

In Devendra Ganpatlal Chamdedia Vs. Chief Officer and Competent Authority, (supra), support of which is strongly drawn by Mr. Samdani, it is noticed that the learned Single Judge of this Court had merely remanded back the matter to the Tribunal for a de novo consideration interalia on the ground that the contentions of the owners of the property that the property was declared as slum area under Section 4 (1) without following the principles of natural justice and the judgment of the Apex Court in Govt. of Mysore vs. I.V. Bhatt (supra) though relied upon, was not considered by the Tribunal. The said judgment of the learned Single Judge is therefore ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:36:52 ::: Dmt 83 Wp2488-11 not an authority for the proposition that principles of natural justice are required to be followed before making a declaration under the Slum Act. Reliance placed upon this decision by the Petitioners is therefore misplaced. It is also noticed that that was a case of declaration of slum area under section 4(1) and the challenge in that case was by the owners of the property.
Bombay High Court Cites 58 - Cited by 5 - A A Sayed - Full Document

M G Shanthkumar (Deceased) vs The Deputy Commissioner on 5 July, 2019

20. It is also not in dispute that both the notifications contain the name of original owner-M.G.Shanthkumar. Even in the absence of any of the provisions of the Act and Rules to issue notice, the Deputy Commissioner ought to have issued notice to the owner of the property in question before issuing final notification to comply natural justice i.e., Rule of "audi alteram partem". Admittedly, before issuing of preliminary and final notifications, the Deputy Commissioner has not followed the principles of natural justice. Though the Act is silent about the notice and hearing, the fact remains that natural justice-Rule of "audi alteram partem" cannot be denied in respect of lawful owner of the property in question. My view is fortified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while considering the provisions the Mysore Slum Areas (Improvement and 30 Clearance) Act in the case of THE GOVERNMENT OF MYSORE AND OTHERS vs. J. V. BHAT AND OTHERS reported in (1975) 1 SCC 110, at paragraphs 18 & 21 has held as follows:
Karnataka High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - B Veerappa - Full Document

T.S. Senthil Kumar vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 10 February, 2010

20.In the result, we dispose of the writ petition in the same lines adopting the same method which the Supreme Court done in the two cases cited supra Mysore vs. J.V. Bhat - 1975 (2) S.C.R. 407 and (ii)The Scheduled Caste & Weaker Section Welfare Association vs. State of Karnataka, - 1991 (1) U.J. (S.C.) 628 = AIR 1991 SC 1117 = 1991 (2) SCC 604., where the Supreme Court dealt with the Mysore Slum (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1958 and without declaring that the Act is unconstitutional since no opportunity is given, we will hold that there is nothing in the Act which excludes the principles of natural justice. The Act does not specifically indicate that the encroachers do not have a right to be heard and therefore we issue the following directions.
Madras High Court Cites 40 - Cited by 191 - P Sridevan - Full Document

Shobha W/O. Mohan Sabnis vs The State Of Karnataka on 16 October, 2025

NC: 2025:KHC-D:14067 WP No. 81050 of 2013 HC-KAR covered by any law validly made. What particular rule of natural justice should apply to a given case must depend to an extent on the facts and circumstances of that case, the framework of the law under which the enquiry is held and the body of persons appointed for that purpose. It is only where there is nothing in the statute to actually prohibit the giving of an opportunity to be heard, but on the other hand, the nature of the statutory duty imposed itself necessarily implied an obligation to hear before deciding, that the audi alteram partem rule could be imported. Thus in applying the test, to the provisions of the earlier Actthe Mysore Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1958, this Court held in Government of Mysore v. J.V. Bhat [(1975) 1 SCC 110 : (1975) 2 SCR 407] , thus: (SCC p. 119, para 18) "There can be no two opinions about the need to hear the affected persons before declaring an area to be a slum area under Section 3, or an area as a clearance area under Section 9 or before taking action under Section 10. All these difficulties will be removed if the affected person are given an opportunity to be heard in respect of the action proposed."
Karnataka High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - M Nagaprasanna - Full Document

The State Of Tamil Nadu vs Mettur Dam Small Scale Industrialists ... on 7 August, 2025

Even if the Statute itself does not prescribe the hearing, it is open to the Court to incorporate the principles of natural justice as has been pointed out in A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India in Government of Mysore v. J.V. Bhat and in Swadeshi Cotton Mills v. Union of India. A reference...to a passage 'Administrative Law by Prof. De. Smith is worth mentioning and it is to the following effect;
Madras High Court Cites 35 - Cited by 0 - J N Banu - Full Document

The State Of Tamil Nadu vs _______________ on 7 August, 2025

Even if the Statute itself does not prescribe the hearing, it is open to the Court to incorporate the principles of natural justice as has been pointed out in A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India in Government of Mysore v. J.V. Bhat and in Swadeshi Cotton Mills v. Union of India. A reference...to a passage 'Administrative Law by Prof. De. Smith is worth mentioning and it is to the following effect;
Madras High Court Cites 41 - Cited by 0 - J N Banu - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next