Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.23 seconds)Section 11 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996
Section 12 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Managing Director Ecil Hyderabad Etc. ... vs B. Karunakar Etc. Etc on 1 October, 1993
In support of their contention, the
Learned counsel for the respondents placed reliance on
the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Managing Director, ECIL v. B Karnakumar reported
in (1993) 4 SCC 727, in which the Hon'ble Apex Court
Patna High Court CWJC No.20472 of 2019 dt.31-01-2025
40/70
held that the Principles of Natural Justice are not to be
invoked automatically but should be examined in the
context of each case. If it is found that the denial of a
report did not affect the ultimate findings or
punishment, the court should not interfere with the
order. Courts should assess whether the non-supply of
the report made a significant difference to the result.
State Bank Of Patiala & Ors vs S.K.Sharma on 27 March, 1996
32. The Learned counsel further placed
reliance in the case of State Bank of Patiala v. S.K.
Sharma reported in (1996) 3 SCC 364, in which the
Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasized that violations of
procedural rules in disciplinary proceedings do not
automatically invalidate the proceedings. The Court or
Tribunal must examine whether the violation caused
prejudice to the employee or whether it was a mere
technicality that did not affect justice. The Court must
distinguish between violations of procedural rules that
are substantive and those that are procedural. If the
violation of a procedural provision is of a mandatory
character and causes prejudice, the order may be set
Patna High Court CWJC No.20472 of 2019 dt.31-01-2025
41/70
aside. However, in cases where the violation is not
mandatory and does not cause prejudice, the order may
still stand. Additionally, where there is no formal
statutory requirement, but only an implied obligation to
observe natural justice, the court must consider whether
the person was given a fair hearing. If the violation was
merely technical and did not affect the fairness of the
hearing, the order should not be set aside. In conclusion,
when applying the rule of audi alteram partem, the
primary objective is to ensure a fair hearing and prevent
a failure of justice. Courts must carefully consider
whether the violation of procedural rules has led to a
real injustice, and balance this against the public interest
and other relevant factors.
P.D. Agrawal vs State Bank Of India & Ors on 28 April, 2006
33. The Learned counsel for the
respondents further placed reliance on the decision of
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of P.D. Agrawal v.
State Bank of India reported in (2006) 8 SCC 776, in
which their Lordships observed that the Principles of
Natural Justice have evolved over time. It held that the
Patna High Court CWJC No.20472 of 2019 dt.31-01-2025
42/70
violation of these principles does not automatically
render an order invalid. The Court emphasized that real
prejudice must be shown, rather than merely asserting a
technical breach. The principle of audi alteram partem
(the right to a fair hearing) should be applied based on
the facts of the case and not in a rigid, formulaic
manner.
Union Of India vs Alok Kumar on 16 April, 2010
In the case of Union of India v. Alok Kumar
(2010) 5 SCC 349, it is clarified that the breach of
natural justice should not automatically lead to a
presumption of prejudice. Instead, prejudice must be a
definite inference arising from the circumstances, not
merely an apprehension. In cases where the rule is
directory and not mandatory, actual prejudice needs to
be proven.
Enercon (India) Ltd And Ors vs Enercon Gmbh And Anr on 14 February, 2014
45. The Learned Senior counsel for the
Patna High Court CWJC No.20472 of 2019 dt.31-01-2025
50/70
petitioner further submits that the Court must adopt a
pragmatic approach and not a pedantic one, while
interpreting arbitration clauses and faced with an
unworkable clause, it is the duty of the Court to make it
workable while staying within the boundaries of law,
ensuring the parties' intention to arbitrate is upheld. The
Learned Senior counsel placed reliance on the judgment
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Enercon (India) Ltd.
v. Enercon Gmbh (2014) 5 SCC 1, in which their
Lordships have held as follows: