Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.27 seconds)
Subhash Chandra Sharma vs Managing Director, U.P. Co-Op. Spg. ... on 7 September, 1999 cites

Meenglas Tea Estate vs Its Workmen on 22 February, 1963

In Meenglas Tea Estate v. Workmen, AIR 1963 SC 1719. the Supreme Court observed : "It is an elementary principle that a person who is required to answer a charge must know not only the accusation but also the testimony by which the accusation is supported. He must be given a fair chance to hear the evidence in support of the charge and to put such relevant questions by way of cross-examination as he desires. Then he must be given a chance to rebut the evidence led against him.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 240 - M Hidayatullah - Full Document

State Of Uttar Pradesh & Anr vs Sri C.S. Sharma on 1 May, 1967

In State of U. P. v. C. S. Sharma. AIR 1968 SC. 158. the Supreme Court held that omission to give opportunity to the Olficer to produce his witnesses and lead evidence in his defence vitiates the proceedings. The Court also held that in the enquiry witnesses have to be examined in support of the allegations, and opportunity has to be given to the delinquent to cross-examine these witnesses and to lead evidence in his defence.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 108 - M Hidayatullah - Full Document
1