Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 27 (3.61 seconds)Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Snowcem India Ltd. And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 24 September, 2004
17. A perusal of the above extract reveals that the Bombay High
Court in Snowcem India Ltd. v. Union of India, has held that
Section 274(1)(g) of the Companies Act 1956, would not violate
Article 19 or 14 of the Constitution of India as it does not restrict
an individual's freedom to carry on his business, trade or
occupation, does not create any unreasonable classification and
merely acts as a penal measure in cases where a Director has
failed to carry out his duties. Additionally it held that Section
274(1)(g) of the Companies Act 1956, was a necessary provision
as it was in the interest of ensuring good corporate governance
and transparency.
The Companies Act, 1956
Swadeshi Cotton Mills vs Union Of India on 13 January, 1981
127.Swadeshi Cotton Mills v. Union of India, (supra), is a leading
judgment on post-decisional hearing. In the said case, the facts
were that on 13.04.1978, the Government of India, in exercise of
power under Section 18-AA(1)(a) of the Industries (Development
and Regulation) Act, 1951, passed an order for taking over the
management of Swadeshi Cotton Mills Limited by the National
Textile Corporation Limited, stating that the Central Government
9
was satisfied from the documentary and other evidence in its
possession, that the persons in charge of the six industrial
undertakings, had, by creation of encumbrances on the assets of
the said industrial undertakings, brought about a situation
which had affected and was likely to further affect the production
of articles manufactured or produced in the said industrial
undertakings and that immediate action was necessary to
prevent such a situation. The company assailed the said order
on the ground that compliance of principle of audi alter
partem was in-built in Section 18-AA(1) of the said Act and its
non-observance had vitiated the order. The Hon' ble Supreme
Court by a majority judgment held that the provision did not
exclude audi alteram partem rule and observed that it was not
reasonably possible to construe Section 18-AA(1) of the said Act
as universally excluding either expressly or by an inevitable
intendment, the application of audi alteram partem rule of
natural justice at the pre-taking-over stage, regardless of the
facts and circumstances of the particular case. However, in the
said case, Hon'ble Chinnappa Reddy, J., dissented by observing
that the exclusion of natural justice, where such exclusion is not
express, has to be implied by reference to the subject, the statute
and the statutory situation. Where an express provision in the
statute itself provides for a post-decisional hearing, the other
provisions of the statute will have to be read in light of said
provision and the provision for post-decisional hearing may then
clinch the issue where pre-decisional natural justice appears to
be excluded on the other terms of the statute.
Saurashtra Cement And Chemical ... vs Union Of India on 23 November, 1993
18. Further, Gujarat High Court in Saurashtra Cement
Ltd. v. Union of India, (2006) SCC OnLine Guj 258, at paragraph
24 and 27 held as under:--
The Companies Act, 2013
Section 167 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
M/S Sahara India (Firm),Lucknow vs Commissioner Of Income Tax,Central-I & ... on 11 April, 2008
In Sahara India (Firm), Lucknow v. Commissioner of Income
Tax, Central-I, (supra), the question was whether in every case
where the assessing officer issues a direction under Section
142(2)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the assessee has to be
heard before such an order is passed. After referring to the
development of law on the principles of natural justice, it was
held that Section 142(2)(a) of the said Act led to serious civil
consequences and therefore, even in the absence of express
provision for affording an opportunity of a pre-decisional hearing
to an assessee, the requirement of observance of principles of
natural justice had to be read into the said provision. In the said
case, it was held that the proceedings before an assessing officer
are deemed to be judicial proceedings.
Institute Of Chartered Accountants vs L.K. Ratna & Others on 21 October, 1986
In Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. L.K. Ratna,
(supra), the question, inter alia, was whether a member of the
Institute of Chartered Accountants of India was entitled to a
hearing by a Council of the Institute after the Disciplinary
Committee had submitted its report to the Council of its enquiry
into allegations of misconduct against the member. It was held
that a member accused of misconduct was entitled to a hearing
by the Council when, on receipt of report of the Disciplinary
Committee, it proceeded to find whether he is or is not guilty.