Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.20 seconds)
Prem Shankar Dwivedi vs Uoi & Ors on 1 August, 2025 cites

Director (Marketing) Indian Oil Corpn. ... vs Santosh Kumar on 23 May, 2006

14. At this juncture, it is apposite to mention the case of Director (Marketing), Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. v. Santosh Kumar, (2006) 11 SCC 147, wherein the Apex Court emphasised that the appellate authorities cannot merely adopt the language of the Disciplinary Committee while affirming its order. The relevant paragraphs of the same are as follows:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 130 - A R Lakshmanan - Full Document

State Of Maharashtra vs Vithal Rao Pritirao Chawan on 20 July, 1981

"8. This Court has consistently laid down that every judicial or/and quasi-judicial order passed by the court/tribunal/authority concerned, which decides the lis between the parties, must be supported with the reasons in support of its conclusion. The parties to the lis and so also the appellate/revisionary court while examining the correctness of the order are entitled to know as to on which basis, a particular conclusion is arrived at in the order. In the absence of any discussion, the reasons and the findings on the submissions urged, it is not possible to know as to what led the court/tribunal/authority for reaching to such conclusion. (See State of Maharashtra v. Vithal Rao Pritirao Chawan [State of Maharashtra v. Vithal Rao Pritirao Chawan, (1981) 4 SCC 129 : 1981 SCC (Cri) 807] , Jawahar Lal Singh v. Naresh Singh [Jawahar Lal Singh v. Naresh Singh, (1987) 2 SCC 222 : 1987 SCC (Cri) 347] , State of U.P. v. Battan [State of U.P. v. Battan, (2001) 10 SCC 607 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 639] , Raj Kishore Jha v. State of Bihar [Raj Kishore Jha v. State of Bihar, (2003) 11 SCC 519 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 212] and State of Orissa v. Dhaniram Luhar [State of Orissa v. Dhaniram Luhar, (2004) 5 SCC 568 : (2008) 2 SCC (Cri) 49] .)" (Emphasis supplied)
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 95 - D A Desai - Full Document
1