Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.24 seconds)The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
Chairman, Board Of Mining Examination ... vs Ramjee on 3 February, 1977
20. Even if it is asked for, it does not mean that it must be extended for the mere asking. As pointed out in Chairman, Board of Mining and Chief Inspector of ' Mines Examination v. Ramjee , "unnatural expansion of natural justice without reference to the administrative realities and other factor of a given case, can be exasperating". In these two matters, on what had been analysed in the earlier part of this order, whatever relevant materials require to be placed, had been put forth in written explanations given by them, and there being no offer extended to examine any witnesses, and at no point of time prior to the presentation of the revision petition, such a request, having been ever made a personal hearing to be given; the facts and circumstances of these cases do not in any manner show that there had been any violation of the principles of natural justice in not extending a personal hearing to the respective petitioners.
Article 217 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Board Of Trustees Of The Port Of Bombay vs Dilipkumar Raghavendranath Nadkarni ... on 17 November, 1982
12. Board of Trustees, Port of Bombay v. Dilipkumar was a case wherein an employee of the Bombay Port Trust asked for a lawyer to be engaged, but it was ref used while legally trained officers were appointed as presenting officers of the Port Trust, and it was then held that the refusal to enable him to be- defended by an equally competent per-son was unjustified and offended natural justice. In the instant case, it was not the case of the petitioners that the charge memos issued against them were presented by a legally trained officer.
National Textile Workers' Union vs P.R. Ramakrishnan & Others on 5 May, 1983
13. National Textile Workers' Union v. P. R. Ramakrishnan is referred to show that unless there is an express exclusion, a right of person affected by an order having civil consequences, cannot be deprived of a personal hearing. In dealing with case relating to winding up of a Company, it was held that the workmen, who would be affected by an order of winding-up, are entitled to be heard. This decision only shows that the affected party will have a right of being heard before an adverse order having civil consequences is passed. As for petitioners are concerned, show cause notices are issued, their, explanations were called for, and it is then forwarded to the Checking Officer for. His comments and his views are forwarded to the petitioner, and only after consideration of their representations, the final order was passed. Therefore, this is not a case wherein no opportunity at all is given to the affected party.
Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr vs The Chiief Election Commissioner, New ... on 2 December, 1977
14. Then reference is made to Mohinder Singh v. Chief Election Commr. wherein it was held' as follows
"......And this principle is so integral to good government, the onus is on him who urges exclusion.
Union Of India vs Jyoti Prakash Mitter on 21 January, 1971
In the same volume at page 501 Union of India v. Jyoti Prakash Mitter , in dealing with the power exercised by the President of India under Art. 217(3) of Constitution of India, which states that after consultation with Chief Justice: it was held :
F. N. Roy vs Collector Of Customs, Calcutta on 16 May, 1957
In dealing with the Sea Customs Act, in F. N. Roy v. Collector of Customs , it was held as follows : -
The State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Mohammad Nooh on 30 September, 1957
In State of U.P. v. Mohd. Nooh (AIR 1958 SC 86) it was observed as follows : -