Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.30 seconds)
The Secretary/Correspondent. St. ... vs Dr. S.Wilson And Ors. Etc. on 9 January, 2019 cites

K. L. Tripathi vs State Bank Of India And Others on 4 October, 1983

6. It is apparent that the Lecturers having been appointed by the incumbents who were not in fact competent to appoint but they have made the appointments illegally under interim order of the Court that was ultimately vacated by the High Court with strictures upon them. No useful purpose would be served by grant of opportunity of hearing to those who were so appointed by the persons who were in fact incompetent to appoint and have taken undue advantage of the Court’s order of status quo ante. The principles of natural justice cannot be put into a strait­jacket formula and that its application will depend upon the fact situation of each and every case as laid down by this Court in K.L. Tripathi v. State Bank of India, (1984) 1 SCC 43; N.K. Prasada v. Govt. of India, (2004) 6 SCC 299; State Bank of Punjab v. Jagir Singh, (2004) 8 SCC 129; Karnataka SRTC v. S.G. Kotturappa, (2005) 3 SCC 409 and Vivekanand Sethi v. Chairman, J&K Bank Ltd., (2005) 5 SCC 337.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 474 - S Mukharji - Full Document

N.K. Prasada vs Government Of India And Ors on 12 April, 2004

6. It is apparent that the Lecturers having been appointed by the incumbents who were not in fact competent to appoint but they have made the appointments illegally under interim order of the Court that was ultimately vacated by the High Court with strictures upon them. No useful purpose would be served by grant of opportunity of hearing to those who were so appointed by the persons who were in fact incompetent to appoint and have taken undue advantage of the Court’s order of status quo ante. The principles of natural justice cannot be put into a strait­jacket formula and that its application will depend upon the fact situation of each and every case as laid down by this Court in K.L. Tripathi v. State Bank of India, (1984) 1 SCC 43; N.K. Prasada v. Govt. of India, (2004) 6 SCC 299; State Bank of Punjab v. Jagir Singh, (2004) 8 SCC 129; Karnataka SRTC v. S.G. Kotturappa, (2005) 3 SCC 409 and Vivekanand Sethi v. Chairman, J&K Bank Ltd., (2005) 5 SCC 337.
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 55 - S B Sinha - Full Document

State Of Punjab vs Jagir Singh on 27 September, 2004

6. It is apparent that the Lecturers having been appointed by the incumbents who were not in fact competent to appoint but they have made the appointments illegally under interim order of the Court that was ultimately vacated by the High Court with strictures upon them. No useful purpose would be served by grant of opportunity of hearing to those who were so appointed by the persons who were in fact incompetent to appoint and have taken undue advantage of the Court’s order of status quo ante. The principles of natural justice cannot be put into a strait­jacket formula and that its application will depend upon the fact situation of each and every case as laid down by this Court in K.L. Tripathi v. State Bank of India, (1984) 1 SCC 43; N.K. Prasada v. Govt. of India, (2004) 6 SCC 299; State Bank of Punjab v. Jagir Singh, (2004) 8 SCC 129; Karnataka SRTC v. S.G. Kotturappa, (2005) 3 SCC 409 and Vivekanand Sethi v. Chairman, J&K Bank Ltd., (2005) 5 SCC 337.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 29 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Karnataka State Rd Trans. Corp.&Ano vs S.G.Kotturappa&Anr on 3 March, 2005

6. It is apparent that the Lecturers having been appointed by the incumbents who were not in fact competent to appoint but they have made the appointments illegally under interim order of the Court that was ultimately vacated by the High Court with strictures upon them. No useful purpose would be served by grant of opportunity of hearing to those who were so appointed by the persons who were in fact incompetent to appoint and have taken undue advantage of the Court’s order of status quo ante. The principles of natural justice cannot be put into a strait­jacket formula and that its application will depend upon the fact situation of each and every case as laid down by this Court in K.L. Tripathi v. State Bank of India, (1984) 1 SCC 43; N.K. Prasada v. Govt. of India, (2004) 6 SCC 299; State Bank of Punjab v. Jagir Singh, (2004) 8 SCC 129; Karnataka SRTC v. S.G. Kotturappa, (2005) 3 SCC 409 and Vivekanand Sethi v. Chairman, J&K Bank Ltd., (2005) 5 SCC 337.
Supreme Court of India Cites 27 - Cited by 145 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Sohan Lal Gupta (Dead) Thr. L.Rs. & Ors vs Smt. Asha Devi Gupta & Ors on 1 September, 2003

7. It is equally well settled that the principles of natural justice must not be stretched too far and in this connection, reference may be made to the decisions of this Court in Sohan Lal Gupta v. Asha Devi Gupta, (2003) 7 SCC 492; Mardia Chemicals Ltd. v. Union of India, (2004) 4 SCC 311 and Canara Bank v. Shri Debasis Das, (2003) 2 SCR 968.
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 124 - S B Sinha - Full Document

State Of Gujarat vs R. G. Teredesai & Anr on 10 April, 1969

Certainly we agree with the principles expounded therein. But then we cannot look at law in the abstract or natural justice as a mere artifact. Nor can we fit into a rigid mould the concept of reasonable opportunity. Shri Gambhir cited before us the decisions in State of Gujarat v. R.G. Teredesai, (1969) 2 SCC 128; Management of DTU v. B.B.L. Hajelay, (1972) 2 SCC 744 and Krishna Chandra Tandon v. Union of India, (1974) 4 SCC 374; and one or two other rulings. The ratio therein hardly militates against the realism which must inform ‘reasonable opportunity’ or the rule against bias. If the authority which takes the final decision acts mechanically and without applying its own mind, the order may be bad, but if the decision­ making body, after fair and independent consideration, reaches a conclusion which tallies with the recommendations of the subordinate authority which held the preliminary enquiry, there is no error in law. Recommendations are not binding but are merely raw material for consideration. Where there is no surrender of judgment by the Board to the recommending Regional Inspector, there is no contravention of the canons of natural justice. We agree with Shri Gambhir that the adjudicating agency must indicate in the order, at least briefly, why it takes the decision it does, unless the circumstances are so clear that the concluding or decretal part of the order speaks for itself even regarding the reasons which have led to it. It is desirable also to communicate the report of the Inquiry Officer, including that part which relates to the recommendation in the matter of punishment so that the representation of the delinquent may be pointed and meaningful.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 38 - A N Grover - Full Document
1   2 Next