Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 30 (0.30 seconds)The Punjab Tenancy Rules
Union Of India vs Col. J. N. Sinha And Anr on 12 August, 1970
"Rules of natural justice are not embodied rules nor can they be elevated to the position of fundamental rights. As observed by this Court in Union of India v. J.N. Sinha, Kraipak, A.K. v. Union of India the aim of rules of natural justice is to secure justice or to put it negatively to prevent miscarriage of justice. These rules can operate only in areas not covered by any law validly made. In other words they do not supplant the law but supplement it. It is true that if a statutory provision can be read consistently with the principles of natural justice, the Courts should do so because it must be presumed that the Legislatures and the statutory authorities intend to act in accordance with the principles of natural justice. But if on the other hand a statutory provision either specifically or by necessary implication excludes the application of any or all the principles of natural justice then the Court cannot ignore the mandate of the Legislature or the statutory authority and read into the concerned provision the principles of natural justice. Whether the exercise of a power conferred should be made in accordance with any of the principles of natural justice or not depends upon the express words of the provision conferring the power, the nature of the power conferred, the purpose for which it is conferred and the effect of the exercise of that power.
Jagdeorao Anandrao Pawar vs Kisan Namdeo Pawar And Anr. on 22 March, 1979
in the case of Shrimant Jagdeorao Anandrao Pawar v. Kisan Namdeo Pawar and Ors., 7979 Mh.L.J. 687, wherein it was held that an inquiry under Section 88(2) of the Act could not be treated at par with judicial trial. By this judgment Masodkar, J. held that tenant need not be heard by the Collector during the course of such inquiry.
A. K. Kraipak & Ors. Etc vs Union Of India & Ors on 29 April, 1969
"Rules of natural justice are not embodied rules nor can they be elevated to the position of fundamental rights. As observed by this Court in Union of India v. J.N. Sinha, Kraipak, A.K. v. Union of India the aim of rules of natural justice is to secure justice or to put it negatively to prevent miscarriage of justice. These rules can operate only in areas not covered by any law validly made. In other words they do not supplant the law but supplement it. It is true that if a statutory provision can be read consistently with the principles of natural justice, the Courts should do so because it must be presumed that the Legislatures and the statutory authorities intend to act in accordance with the principles of natural justice. But if on the other hand a statutory provision either specifically or by necessary implication excludes the application of any or all the principles of natural justice then the Court cannot ignore the mandate of the Legislature or the statutory authority and read into the concerned provision the principles of natural justice. Whether the exercise of a power conferred should be made in accordance with any of the principles of natural justice or not depends upon the express words of the provision conferring the power, the nature of the power conferred, the purpose for which it is conferred and the effect of the exercise of that power.
Olga Tellis & Ors vs Bombay Municipal Corporation & Ors. Etc on 10 July, 1985
In the case of Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation ; a Constitution Bench comprising five learned Judges of the Apex Court had occasion to deal with the provisions of Section 314 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888. Chandrachud C. J., (as he then was) delivering the judgment of the Court held that: (SCC p. 581, para 44).
Narayandas Kedarnath Daga vs The State Of Maharashtra on 29 August, 1963
25. The Apex Court in the case of Kedarnath v. State of Bihar, said :
Mrs. Maneka Gandhi vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 25 January, 1978
26. I may mention that the opinion formed by me is in line with the view taken by another Single Judge of this Court in the case of Poulad Deochand Patil v. Samasta Aher Nhavi Panch Trust, reported in 1992 Mh. L.J. 412, wherein Dhanuka, J. applying the principles of law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India and Anr., , reached to conclusion that the tenant in that case was entitled for opportunity of hearing keeping in view the rules of natural justice.
Raj Narain Pandey & Ors vs Sant Prasad Tewari & Ors on 31 October, 1972
Educational Officer and Ors., , Raj Narain Pandey v. Sant Prasad Tewari and Ors. , held that in the matter of local statute the view taken by the High Court over number of years should normally be adhered to and not disturbed. The said observations are referred to and relied upon by the Apex Court in the case of Darshansingh etc. v. Ram Pal Singh and Anr., (1992), Suppl.