Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.28 seconds)
Jai Narayan Prasad vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 4 May, 2015 cites

Dinesh Prasad Yadav vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 13 January, 1995

Mr. Prakash has cited a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Dinesh Prasad versus The State of Bihar (2006 (4) PLJR 514) wherein this Court while dealing with the Patna High Court CWJC No.16214 of 2006 dt.04-05-2015 7/10 fascicules of provision contained in Rule 97 of the Code and finding support from 2003 (4)PLJR 68 in paragraph 10 of the report held as under:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 48 - K Singh - Full Document

Pramod Kumar Jain vs Satpura Kshetriya Gramin Bank on 28 September, 2010

"10. Admittedly, it appears from the materials on record and also from the record produced before us by the State Counsel that no such opportunity was given to the petitioner in terms of Rule 97(3) of the Code. A Bench of this court while considering this question in the case of Pramod Kumar vs. The Champaran Kshetriya Gramin Bank and Ors. reported in 2003(4) PLJR 68 relying upon a decision of this court rendered in the case of Mahabir Prasad vs. State of Bihar reported in 1988 PLJR 82, held that non- observance of the provisions of Rule 97(3) of the Code would amount to violation of the principles of natural justice. The orders impugned on these scores, appear to be violative of the principles of natural justice as referred to above."
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 15 - Full Document

Mahabir Prasad Jalan And Anr. vs The State Of Bihar And Ors. on 6 November, 1990

"10. Admittedly, it appears from the materials on record and also from the record produced before us by the State Counsel that no such opportunity was given to the petitioner in terms of Rule 97(3) of the Code. A Bench of this court while considering this question in the case of Pramod Kumar vs. The Champaran Kshetriya Gramin Bank and Ors. reported in 2003(4) PLJR 68 relying upon a decision of this court rendered in the case of Mahabir Prasad vs. State of Bihar reported in 1988 PLJR 82, held that non- observance of the provisions of Rule 97(3) of the Code would amount to violation of the principles of natural justice. The orders impugned on these scores, appear to be violative of the principles of natural justice as referred to above."
Patna High Court Cites 47 - Cited by 37 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Ravi Yashwant Bhoir vs The Collector, District Raigad & Ors on 2 March, 2012

The second submission of the petitioner is that order under Patna High Court CWJC No.16214 of 2006 dt.04-05-2015 9/10 challenge (Annexure-13) is non-speaking one. On perusal of the same, it appears that the order has been passed recording that the show cause reply of the petitioner was found unsatisfactory. Nothing more on the charges and reply thereto by the petitioner has been referred to in the order which according to the disciplinary authority was held unsatisfactory. True it is that no detail reason is required to be assigned by the authority but it should appear from the order itself that the authority applied its mind to the facts of the case before inflicting the punishment. Such order passed in the proceeding is quasi-judicial in nature. Even in case of administrative order/matters, the Courts always insist on recording reason in support of the order which has been held to be soul of the order providing an opportunity to the higher Court/authority to consider in case a challenge is made. Mr. Prakash has rightly in this regard relied on Ravi Yashwant Bhoir vs. District Collector, Raigad 2012 (3) PLJR 86(SC) wherein the Hon‟ble Apex Court considered the importance of recording reasons in support of either the administrative order or the quasi-judicial order.
Supreme Court of India Cites 61 - Cited by 629 - Full Document
1