Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.20 seconds)Section 203 in Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 [Entire Act]
Section 205 in Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 [Entire Act]
Kumaon Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd vs Girja Shankar Pant & Ors on 18 October, 2000
As observed by the Supreme Court in Board of Mining Examination v. Ramjee, and , Kumaon Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd. v. Girja Shankar Pant, 2001 (1) SCC 182 natural justice is not an unruly horse.
Bar Council Of India vs High Court Of Kerala on 27 April, 2004
The rules of natural justice are flexible and are not a strait-jacket formula, vide Bar Council of India v. High Court of Kerala, JT 2004 Supp.
Union Of India And Another vs Tulsiram Patel And Others on 11 July, 1985
(1) SCC 428 (paragraph-47), The M.S.F.C v. Suvarana Board Mills and Anr., , Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel .
Union Of India & Anr vs M/S. Jesus Sales Corporation on 26 March, 1996
In Union of India and Anr. v. Jesus Sales Corporation, , the Supreme Court observed: -
B.R. Enterprises Etc, Etc vs State Of U.P. And Grs. Etc: Etc on 7 May, 1999
In this connection, it may be mentioned that the Supreme Court in B.R. Enterprises v. State of U.P observed: -
Lachman Utamchand Kiriplani vs Meena Alias Mota on 14 August, 1963
25. In our opinion, we can give a wider meaning to the word absence than mere physical absence. One word can have several meanings, just as several words can have one meaning (synonyms). It all depends on the context in which it has been used. For example, the word desertion appearing in Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act implies not only factum of separation, but also animus deserendi, vide Lachman v. Meena, . There can be constructive desertion. The husband and wife may be living together under the same roof, but the husband may have legally deserted her (wife) by his conduct. Similarly the word absence is a word of wide connotation, and is not necessarily limited to physical absence. The indifferent or obstructionist attitude of a person or avoidance can, in our opinion, amount to absence in some situations.
Madhya Pradesh Industries Ltd vs Union Of India And Others on 16 August, 1965
14. We agree with the learned single Judge that before granting prior approval to the resolution of the Village Panchayat authorizing any other member to operate the account along with the President, as provided by G.O.Ms.No. 92, Rural Development (C.III) Department dated 26.3.1997, the Inspector of Panchayats (District Collector) has to give a notice to the Vice President and an opportunity of hearing to him. Such hearing need not be a personal hearing and he can only be given a show cause notice asking him to give a reply to the allegations in the show cause notice within a reasonable period. In our opinion, such a procedure would comply with the principles of natural justice, and it is not necessary that the Vice President must be allowed to appear in person along with his counsel, witnesses etc. vide M.P.Industries v. Union of India, 1966 SC 671(vide paragraph 20), Anil Kumar Srivastava v. Chairman, L.I.C. of India (2003 ALJ 1744), Narain Das Jain v. C.W.T (Vol.191 ITR 126) etc.