Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.23 seconds)
Tarun Rastogi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 April, 2025 cites

Union Of India & Anr vs M/S. Jesus Sales Corporation on 26 March, 1996

In support of this submission, he relied on the judgment of this Court in Union of India v. Jesus Sales Corpn. [(1996) 4 SCC 69] The submission cannot be brushed aside in view of the observations made by this Court in the aforesaid judgment, which are as under: (SCC pp. 74-75, para 5) "5. The High Court has primarily considered the question as to whether denying an opportunity to the appellant to be heard before his prayer to dispense with the deposit of the penalty is rejected, violates and contravenes the principles of natural justice. In that connection, several judgments of this Court have been referred to. It need not be pointed out that under different situations and conditions the requirement of compliance with the principle of natural justice vary. The courts cannot insist that under all circumstances and under different statutory provisions personal hearings have to be afforded to the persons concerned. If this principle of affording personal hearing is extended whenever statutory authorities are vested with the power to exercise discretion in connection with statutory appeals, it shall lead to chaotic conditions. Many statutory appeals and applications are disposed of by the competent authorities who have been vested with powers to dispose of the same. Such authorities Signature Not Verified Signed by: ALOK KUMAR Signing time: 23-04-2025 16:20:29 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:8824 4 WP-13697-2025 which shall be deemed to be quasi- judicial authorities are expected to apply their judicial mind over the grievances made by the appellants or applicants concerned, but it cannot be held that before dismissing such appeals or applications in all events the quasi- judicial authorities must hear the appellants or the applicants, as the case may be. When principles of natural justice require an opportunity to be heard before an adverse order is passed on any appeal or application, it does not in all circumstances mean a personal hearing. The requirement is complied with by affording an opportunity to the person concerned to present his case before such quasi-judicial authority who is expected to apply his judicial mind to the issues involved. Of course, if in his own discretion if he requires the appellant or the applicant to be heard because of special facts and circumstances of the case, then certainly it is always open to such authority to decide the appeal or the application only after affording a personal hearing. But any order passed after taking into consideration the points raised in the appeal or the application shall not be held to be invalid merely on the ground that no personal hearing had been afforded."
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 111 - N P Singh - Full Document

M.C. Mehta vs Union Of India And Ors on 27 July, 1999

"22. What is known as "useless formality theory" has received consideration of this Court in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India [(1999) 6 SCC 237] . It was observed as under: (SCC pp. 245-47, paras 22-23) "22. Before we go into the final aspects of this contention, we would like to state that cases relating to breach of natural justice do also occur where all facts are not admitted or are not all beyond dispute.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 182 - M J Rao - Full Document

State Bank Of Patiala & Ors vs S.K.Sharma on 27 March, 1996

30) says that while futile writs may not be issued, a distinction has to be made according to the nature of the decision. Thus, in relation to cases other than those relating to admitted or indisputable facts, Signature Not Verified Signed by: ALOK KUMAR Signing time: 23-04-2025 16:20:29 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:8824 9 WP-13697-2025 there is a considerable divergence of opinion whether the applicant can be compelled to prove that the outcome will be in his favour or he has to prove a case of substance or if he can prove a 'real likelihood' of success or if he is entitled to relief even if there is some remote chance of success. We may, however, point out that even in cases where the facts are not all admitted or beyond dispute, there is a considerable unanimity that the courts can, in exercise of their 'discretion', refuse certiorari, prohibition, mandamus or injunction even though natural justice is not followed. We may also state that there is yet another line of cases as in State Bank of Patiala v. S.K. Sharma [(1996) 3 SCC 364 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 717] , Rajendra Singh v. State of M.P. [(1996) 5 SCC 460] that even in relation to statutory provisions requiring notice, a distinction is to be made between cases where the provision is intended for individual benefit and where a provision is intended to protect public interest. In the former case, it can be waived while in the case of the latter, it cannot be waived.
Supreme Court of India Cites 29 - Cited by 1234 - B P Reddy - Full Document

Godde Venkateswara Rao vs Government Of Andhra Pradesh And Others on 11 October, 1965

23. As was observed by this Court we need not go into "useless formality theory" in detail; in view of the fact that no prejudice has been shown. As is rightly pointed out by learned counsel for the appellants, unless failure of justice is occasioned or that it would not be in public interest to dismiss a petition on the fact situation of a case, this Court may refuse to exercise the said jurisdiction (see Gadde Venkateswara Rao v. Govt. of A.P. [AIR 1966 SC 828] ). It is to be noted that legal formulations cannot be divorced from the fact situation of the case. Personal hearing was granted by the Appellate Authority, though not statutorily prescribed. In a given case post-decisional hearing can obliterate the procedural deficiency of a pre-decisional hearing.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 537 - Full Document
1   2 Next