Bihar State Electricity Board & Anr vs Dhanawat Rice And Oil Mills on 17 January, 1989
12. Lord Wright referred to the leading cases on the subject. The most
important of them is the Board of Education v. Rice (1911 AC 179:80 LJKB
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.20 seconds)Mrs. Maneka Gandhi vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 25 January, 1978
In Ridge v. Baldwin (1963(1) WB
569, 578), Harman LJ, in the Court of Appeal countered natural justice with
`fair-play in action' a phrase favoured by Bhagawati, J. in Maneka Gandhi
v. Union of India (1978 (2) SCR 621). In re R.N. (An Infant) (1967(2)
B617, 530), Lord Parker, CJ, preferred to describe natural justice as `a duty
to act fairly'.
Smh Finance (P) Ltd., Shylendran ... vs The Secretary To Govt., Home Department ... on 24 October, 2002
In fairmount Investments Ltd. v. Secretary to State for
Environment (1976 WLR 1255) Lord Russell of Willowan somewhat
picturesquely described natural justice as `a fair crack of the whip' while
Geoffrey Lane, LJ. In Regina v. Secretary of State for Home Affairs Ex
Parte Hosenball (1977 (1) WLR 766) preferred the homely phrase `common
fairness'.
Joseph Lourdes Lawrence And Dominique ... vs Khairwal, Chief Secretary Government ... on 25 March, 2008
In fairmount Investments Ltd. v. Secretary to State for
Environment (1976 WLR 1255) Lord Russell of Willowan somewhat
picturesquely described natural justice as `a fair crack of the whip' while
Geoffrey Lane, LJ. In Regina v. Secretary of State for Home Affairs Ex
Parte Hosenball (1977 (1) WLR 766) preferred the homely phrase `common
fairness'.
State Bank Of Patiala & Ors vs S.K.Sharma on 27 March, 1996
We may also state that
there is yet another line of cases as in State Bank of
Patiala v. S.K. Sharma (1996 (3) SCC 364), Rajendra
Singh v. State of M.P. (1996 (5) SCC 460) that even in
relation to statutory provisions requiring notice, a
distinction is to be made between cases where the
provision is intended for individual benefit and where a
provision is intended to protect public interest. In the
former case, it can be waived while in the case of the
latter, it cannot be waived.
1