Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (6.07 seconds)
Dimple Paraskumar Shah - D/O Parasbhai ... vs Paraskumar Dharamchand Shah on 1 July, 2014 cites

A. K. Kraipak & Ors. Etc vs Union Of India & Ors on 29 April, 1969

"Since   the   decision   of   this   Court   in   Kraipak's case (A. K. Kraipak v. Union  of   India)   one   golden   rule   that   stands   firmly established is that the doctrine   of   natural   justice   is   not   only   to   secure   justice   but   to   prevent   miscarriage   of   justice.   What,   however,  does   this   doctrine   exactly   mean?
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 1426 - Full Document

The Keshav Mills Company Ltd. & Anr vs Union Of India And Ors on 8 December, 1972

As a matter of fact this Court in the  case of Keshav Mills Co. Ltd. v. Union   of   India   upon   reliance   on   the   attributes   of   the   doctrine   as   above   Page 12 of 16 C/SCA/8827/2014 JUDGMENT stated as below (SCC p.387,para 8) "8.   The   second   question,   however,  as   to   what   are   the   principles   of   natural   justice   that   should  regulate   an   administrative   act   or  order is a much more difficult one   to   answer.   We   do   not   think   it  either   feasible   or   even   desirable  to lay down any fixed or rigorous   yard­stick   in   this   manner.   The  concept   of   natural   justice   cannot  be put into a strait­jacket. It is   futile,   therefore,   to   look   for  definitions or standards of natural  justice from various decisions and  then try to apply them to the facts   of   any   given   case.  The   only  essential point that has to be kept  in   mind   in   all   cases   is   that   the   person   concerned   should   have   a  reasonable   opportunity   of  presenting   his   case   and   that   the   administrative   authority   concerned  should act fairly, impartially and  reasonably.  Where   administrative  officers are concerned, the duty is   not so much to act judicially as to   act fairly.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 113 - Full Document

Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr vs The Chiief Election Commissioner, New ... on 2 December, 1977

26. It is now an accepted proposition of law   that   any   statutory   body   which   is   entrusted   by statute with discretion, must act fairly.   It does not matter whether its functions are   described   as   judicial   or   quasi­judicial   on   the   one   hand,   or   as   administrative   on   the   other.   Even   an   administrative   order,   which   Page 14 of 16 C/SCA/8827/2014 JUDGMENT involves   civil   consequences   must   be   made   consistently   with   the   rules   of   natural   justice.   Although   the   expression   'civil  consequences' has not been defined anywhere,   the observation made in  Mohinder Singh Gill   v.   Chief   Election   Commissioner,   (1978)   1   SCC  405  at para­66  on page 440 is relevant   in this context and reads as below:
Supreme Court of India Cites 56 - Cited by 4221 - V R Iyer - Full Document
1