Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 32 (0.28 seconds)Section 154 in The Central Excise Act, 1944 [Entire Act]
C.B. Gautam vs Union Of India & Ors on 17 November, 1992
The enquiry report constitutes fresh material which has great persuasive
force or effect on the mind of the disciplinary authority. The supply of
the report along with the final order is like a post mortem certificate
with putrefying odour. The failure to supply copy thereof to the delinquent
would be unfair procedure offending not only Arts. 14, 21 and 311(2) of the
Constitution, but also, the principles of natural justice.”
Likewise, in C.B. Gautam v. Union of India & Ors.[12], this Court once
again held that principle of natural justice was applicable even though it
was not statutorily required. The Court took the view that even in the
absence of statutory provision to this effect, the authority was liable to
give notice to the affected parties while purchasing their properties under
Section 269-UD of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It was further observed that
the very fact that an imputation of tax evasion arises where an order for
compulsory purchase is made and such an imputation casts a slur on the
parties to the agreement to sell leads to the conclusion that before such
an imputation can be made against the parties concerned they must be given
an opportunity to show-cause that the under valuation in the agreement for
sale was not with a view to evade tax. It is, therefore, all the more
necessary that an opportunity of hearing is provided.
Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr vs The Chiief Election Commissioner, New ... on 2 December, 1977
“On this approach, the value of legal procedures is judged according to
their contribution to general social goals. The object is to advance
certain social goals, whether through administrative processes, or through
the civil or criminal trial. The law and its processes are simply
instruments for achieving some social good as determined from time to time
by the law makers of the society. Each case is an instance in achieving
the general goal, and a mistaken decision, whether to the benefit or the
detriment of a particular person, is simply a failure to achieve the
general good in that case. At this level of understanding, judgments of
fairness have no place, for all that matters is whether the social good, as
expressed through laws, is effectively achieved.”
Galligan also takes the idea of fair treatment to a second
level of understanding, namely, pursuit of common good involves the
distribution of benefits and burdens, advantages and disadvantages to
individuals (or groups). According to him, principles of justice are the
subject matter of fair treatment. However, that aspect need not be dilated.
Managing Director Ecil Hyderabad Etc. ... vs B. Karunakar Etc. Etc on 1 October, 1993
At the same time, it cannot be denied that as far as Courts are concerned,
they are empowered to consider as to whether any purpose would be served in
remanding the case keeping in mind whether any prejudice is caused to the
person against whom the action is taken. This was so clarified in the case
of Managing Director, ECIL (supra) itself in the following words:
A. K. Kraipak & Ors. Etc vs Union Of India & Ors on 29 April, 1969
From the aforesaid discussion, it becomes clear that the opportunity to
provide hearing before making any decision was considered to be a basic
requirement in the Court proceeding. Later on, this principle was applied
to other quasi-judicial authorities and other tribunals and ultimately it
is now clearly laid down that even in the administrative actions, where the
decision of the authority may result in civil consequences, a hearing
before taking a decision is necessary. It was, thus, observed in A.K.
Kraipak's case (supra) that if the purpose of rules of natural justice is
to prevent miscarriage of justice, one fails to see how these rules should
not be made available to administrative inquiries.
Chairman, Board Of Mining Examination ... vs Ramjee on 3 February, 1977
In Chairman, Board of Mining Examination v. Ramjee, (1977) 2 SCC 256,
the Court has observed that natural justice is not an unruly horse, no
lurking landmine, nor a judicial cure-all. If fairness is shown by the
decision-maker to the man proceeded against, the form, features and the
fundamentals of such essential processual propriety being conditioned by
the facts and circumstances of each situation, no breach of natural justice
can be complained of. Unnatural expansion of natural justice, without
reference to the administrative realities and other factors of a given
case, can be exasperating. The Courts cannot look at law in the abstract or
natural justice as mere artifact. Nor can they fit into a rigid mould the
concept of reasonable opportunity. If the totality of circumstances
satisfies the Court that the party visited with adverse order has not
suffered from denial of reasonable opportunity, the Court will decline to
be punctilious or fanatical as if the rules of natural justice were sacred
scriptures.
Institute Of Chartered Accountants vs L.K. Ratna & Others on 21 October, 1986
In Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. L. K. Ratna, (1986) 4
SCC 537, Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India, (1990) 1 SCC 613 (Bhopal Gas
Leak Disaster Case) and C. B. Gautam v. Union of India, (1993) 1 SCC 78,
the doctrine that the principles of natural justice must be applied in the
unoccupied interstices of the statute unless there is a clear mandate to
the contrary, is reiterated.”
In his separate opinion, concurring on this fundamental
issue, Justice K. Ramaswamy echoed the aforesaid sentiments in the
following words:
Charan Lal Sahu Etc. Etc vs Union Of India And Ors on 22 December, 1989
In Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. L. K. Ratna, (1986) 4
SCC 537, Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India, (1990) 1 SCC 613 (Bhopal Gas
Leak Disaster Case) and C. B. Gautam v. Union of India, (1993) 1 SCC 78,
the doctrine that the principles of natural justice must be applied in the
unoccupied interstices of the statute unless there is a clear mandate to
the contrary, is reiterated.”
In his separate opinion, concurring on this fundamental
issue, Justice K. Ramaswamy echoed the aforesaid sentiments in the
following words:
Mrs. Maneka Gandhi vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 25 January, 1978
In the case of Maneka
Gandhi v. Union of India & Anr.[13] also the application of principle of
natural justice was extended to the administrative action of the State and
its authorities. It is, thus, clear that before taking an action, service
of notice and giving of hearing to the noticee is required. In Maharashtra
State Financial Corporation v. M/s. Suvarna Board Mills & Anr.[14], this
aspect was explained in the following manner: