Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.69 seconds)
Ing Vysya Bank Ltd vs Pankaj Singh on 25 October, 2007 cites

Maneka Gandhi vs Union Of India on 25 January, 1978

13. I find force in the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner . Had the order disposing of the complaint case in question been passed by learned trial Court before appearance of learned counsel on 17.8.2007, before it, then it might have been a different matter. The aforesaid order sheets recorded by learned trial court on 17.08.2007 and reproduced by me hereinbefore, clearly reflect that before disposal of the case on 18.08.2007 ld. counsel for the petitioner had already appeared before it on 17.08.2007, the date fixed and as such it was in the fitness of things that his arguments i.e. arguments of learned counsel should have been heard before passing an appropriate order. At the cost of repetition, it may be pointed out that in fact the complaint case in question could not be disposed of on 8 Of 10 9 17.8.2007 at 3.45 p.m. as had been earlier ordered by learned trial court on that date on account of paucity of time and impugned order came to be passed only the next day. So in view of the aforesaid facts, I have no manner of doubt that learned trial Court should have at least heard learned counsel for the petitioner before passing an adverse order. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maneka Gandhi Vs. UOI, AIR 1978 S.C. 597, has held that the principle of audi alteram partem mandates that no one shall be condemned unheard.
Supreme Court of India Cites 134 - Cited by 1982 - M H Beg - Full Document
1