Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (0.37 seconds)
M/S Alankar Printers vs The State Of Bihar on 13 August, 2025 cites

Haryana Financial Corporation & Anr vs Kailash Chandra Ahuja on 8 July, 2008

32. It was sought to be argued by Mr Maninder Patna High Court CWJC No.11244 of 2025 dt.13-08-2025 28/48 Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the respondent, that even if it is accepted that the show-cause notice should have contained the proposed action of blacklisting, no prejudice was caused to the appellant inasmuch as all necessary details mentioning defaults/prejudices committed by the appellant were given in the show-cause notice and the appellant had even given its reply thereto. According to him, even if the action of blacklisting was not proposed in the show-cause notice, the reply of the appellant would have remained the same. On this premise, the learned Additional Solicitor General has argued that there is no prejudice caused to the appellant by non-mentioning of the proposed action of blacklisting. He argued that unless the appellant was able to show that non-mentioning of blacklisting as the proposed penalty has caused prejudice and has resulted in miscarriage of justice, the impugned action cannot be nullified. For this proposition he referred to the judgment of this Court in Haryana Financial Corpn. v. Kailash Chandra Ahuja [(2008) 9 SCC 31 : (2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 789] : (SCC pp. 38, 40-41 & 44, paras 21, 31, 36 & 44) "21.
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 227 - C K Thakker - Full Document
1   2 Next