cites: 193617577

R. Pandian And Anothera. Deivendran Son ... vs State Of Tamil Naduthrough The ... on 21 October, 1997

In Fairmount Investments Ltd. v. Secy of State for Environment, 1976 2 All ER 865 (HL), Lord Russel of Killowen somewhat picturesquely described natural justice as 'a fair crack of the whip' In R. v. Secy. Of State for Home Affairs, ex p. Hosenball, Geoffrey Lane, LJ, 1977 3 All ER 452 (DC & CA), preferred the homely phrase 'common fairness' in defining natural justice.

Supreme Court of India Cites 44 - Cited by 674 - G N Ray - Full Document

A. K. Kraipak & Ors. Etc vs Union Of India & Ors on 29 April, 1969

8. A.K. Kraipak and others v. Union of India, AIR 1970 SC 150= (1969) 2 SCC 262, is a landmark in the growth of this doctrine. Speaking for the Constitution Bench, Hegde,J. observed thus:

Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 1426 - Full Document

Maneka Gandhi vs Union Of India on 25 January, 1978

In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597 = (1978) 1 SCC 248, law has done further blooming of this concept. This decision has established beyond doubt that even in an administrative proceeding involving civil consequences doctrine of natural justice must be held to be applicable.

Supreme Court of India Cites 134 - Cited by 1982 - M H Beg - Full Document

Swadeshi Cotton Mills vs Union Of India on 13 January, 1981

In Swadeshi Cotton Mills v. Union of India, AIR 1981 SC 818, the meaning of 'natural justice' came for consideration before the apex Court and the apex Court observed as follows:-

Supreme Court of India Cites 49 - Cited by 542 - O C Reddy - Full Document

Basudeo Tiwary vs Sido Kanhu University And Others on 17 September, 1998

In Basudeo Tiwary v Sido Kanhu University and others (1998) 8 SCC 194, the apex Court held that natural justice is an antithesis of arbitrariness. It, therefore, follows that audi alteram partem, which is facet of natural justice is a requirement of Art.14.

Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 211 - S R Babu - Full Document

M/S. Nagarjuna Construction Co. Ltd vs Govt. Of A.P. & Ors on 20 October, 2008

In Nagarjuna Construction Company Limited v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, (2008) 16 SCC 276, the apex Court held as follows:

Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 80 - A Pasayat - Full Document

Uma Nath Pandey & Ors vs State Of U.P.& Anr on 16 March, 2009

12. The apex Court in Uma Nath Panday and others v State of U.P. and others, AIR 2009 SC 2375, held that natural justice is the essence of fair adjudication, deeply rooted in tradition and conscience, to be ranked as fundamental. The purpose of following the principles of natural justice is the prevention of miscarriage of justice.

Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 345 - A Pasayat - Full Document

Union Of India vs Mohan Lal Capoor & Others on 26 September, 1973

In Union of India v. Mohan Lal Capoor, AIR 1974 SC 87, it has been held that reasons are the links between the materials on which certain conclusions are based and the actual conclusions. They disclose how the mind is applied to the subject-matter for a decision whether it is purely administrative or quasi-judicial and reveal a rational nexus between the facts considered and conclusions reached. The reasons assure an inbuilt support to the conclusion and decision 8 reached. Recording of reasons is also an assurance that the authority concerned applied its mind to the facts on record. It is vital for the purpose of showing a person that he is receiving justice.

Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 578 - M H Beg - Full Document

Uma Charan vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Anr on 20 August, 1981

Similar view has also been taken by he apex Court in Uma Charan v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1981 SC 1915 and also by this Court in the cases of Patitapaban Pala v. Orissa Forest Development Corporation Ltd. & another, 2017 (I) OLR 5 and in Banambar Parida v. Orissa Forest Development Corporation Limited, 2017 (I) OLR 625.

Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 64 - A D Koshal - Full Document

Banambar Parida vs Orissa Forest Development Corporation ... on 6 January, 2017

Similar view has also been taken by he apex Court in Uma Charan v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1981 SC 1915 and also by this Court in the cases of Patitapaban Pala v. Orissa Forest Development Corporation Ltd. & another, 2017 (I) OLR 5 and in Banambar Parida v. Orissa Forest Development Corporation Limited, 2017 (I) OLR 625.

Orissa High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 16 - B R Sarangi - Full Document

Search Results Page

Refine Search

Search Results