Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 45 (0.29 seconds)M.J. Sivani And Ors vs State Of Karnataka And Ors on 17 April, 1995
67. The next decision relied upon by Mr. Patil is in the case of M.J.
Sivani v. State of Karnataka (supra), which in fact assists the case of
Petitioners as it holds that the administrative order may itself contain
the reasons or the file may disclose the reasons to arrive at the
decision showing application of mind to the facts in issue and that
appropriate brief reasons though not like a judgment is a necessary
concomitant for a valid order in support of action / decision taken by
the authority or the instrumentality of State.
V.T. Khanzode & Ors vs Reserve Bank Of India & Anr on 5 March, 1982
63. The judgment in the case of V.T. Khanzode vs Reserve Bank of
India (supra) was on the issue of regulations required to be framed
governing the terms and conditions of bank staff. The relevancy of
the said decision is not shown to this Court especially when there was
no argument canvassed qua the absence of framing of regulations by
either of the parties.
State Bank Of Patiala & Ors vs S.K.Sharma on 27 March, 1996
65. The decision in the case of State Bank of Patiala vs S K Sharma
(supra) was pressed into service by Mr. Patil to substantiate the
submission that unless there is prejudice shown, violation of principles
Patil-SR (ch) 64 of 67
wp 7079-23 + Group-C .doc
of natural justice or any procedural provision does not vitiate the
order. In the present case, the violation is not of procedure, neither of
the principles of natural justice and therefore this decision is
inapplicable to the present case.
Bhagabandas Agarwalla vs Bhagwandas Kanu & Ors on 25 February, 1977
59. As far as decision of Bhagabandas Agarwalla vs Bhagwandas
Kanu (supra) is concerned, the decision is on the validity of notice to
quit given under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act,1882.
Canara Bank vs N.G. Subbaraya Setty on 20 April, 2018
57. The Apex Court in Canara Bank vs N.G. Subbaraya Setty
(supra), has held that one of the exception to the principle of res-
judicata is that an erroneous judgment on question of law, which
sanctions something that is illegal also cannot be allowed to operate
as res judicata.
Canara Bank vs V.K. Awasthy on 31 March, 2005
66. The next decisions are of M. C. Mehta v. Union of India (supra)
Ashok Kumar Sonkar v Union of India (supra) and Canara Bank v. V.K.
Awasthy (supra) which decisions are on the issue that remand of the
matter would be an useless formality. Since this Court is not inclined
to remand the matter as the order of Deputy Commissioner dated 29 th
February 2020 has been held to be unsustainable, there is no question
of remand.
Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr vs The Chiief Election Commissioner, New ... on 2 December, 1977
In Mohinder Singh Gill vs Chief Election
Commr(supra), the Apex Court has held that when the statutory
functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must
be judged by the reasons mentioned and cannot be supplemented by
fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. In the present
case, it is clear case of the validity of the order being supplemented by
fresh reasons. In my opinion, the order dated 29 th February, 2020
being a non reasoned order and absent any material demonstrated
Patil-SR (ch) 56 of 67
wp 7079-23 + Group-C .doc
from the office records to disclose the reasons to support the order of
eviction, is legally unsustainable.
Province Of Bombay vs Kusaldas S. Advani And Others on 15 September, 1950
In Province of Bombay vs. Kusaldas S Advani
[AIR 1950 SC 222], it was held thus :
Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation & Ors vs Ramanlal Govindram & Ors on 14 March, 1975
The
decision of The Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation v. Ramanlal
Govindram (supra) considers whether vires of statutory provisions of
Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation (Gujarat Amendment) Act,
1963. The relevancy of the said decisions is not pointed out to this
Court.