Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (0.66 seconds)
Sarju Deen And Another vs Additional Commissioner, ... on 2 August, 2023 cites

United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs Rajendra Singh & Ors on 14 March, 2000

13. Whether an entry in revenue record is fake or fraudulent is a question of fact and can be found to be proved like any other fact only after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned and likely to be affected by the ultimate order/judgment. It is correct that action taken on the basis of fraud has to be set aside and any entry on the basis of fake order has to be expunged. [Vide United India Insurance Co. v. Rajendra Singh, (2000) 2 SCR 264, wherein it has been held (approved) that "no judgment of a court, no order of a Minister can be allowed to stand if it has been obtained by fraud, for, fraud unravels every thing"). However, finding in respect of fraud cannot be recorded ex-parte.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 474 - K T Thomas - Full Document

U.P. Junior Doctors' Action Committee vs Dr. B. Sheetal Nandwani And Ors on 31 August, 1990

In several revenue matters Deputy Collectors/Sub-Divisional Officers and other revenue authorities and courts are passing orders particularly of removal of names from revenue records without hearing the parties which are effected by the said orders placing reliance upon the authority of the Supreme Court inUttar Pradesh Junior Doctors Action Committee v. Dr. B. Sheetal Nandwani, (1991) AIR SC 909. It is the first principle of natural Justice that no adverse orders shall be passed against a person without hearing him even in administrative matters which affect the rights of persons. Grant of opportunity of hearing in administrative matters is comparatively a recent doctrine. As far as judicial matters are concerned since the time when Courts were established it has been the most essential ingredient of procedural law that no order shall be passed without hearing parties concerned. Removal and substitution of entry in revenue records under Section 34 of Land Revenue Act or any other provision is a judicial matter making it all the more necessary to provide opportunity of hearing to the party concerned. The aforesaid authority of the Supreme Court is a rare exception to the Rule. In the said authority the facts were that innumerable medical students on the basis of a fake order of this High Court had obtained admission in higher classes. The Supreme Court enquired the matter from Registrar of this Court. The Registrar sent the original file to the Supreme Court with the report that in the said case no such order was passed. As innumerable persons had obtained benefit under an order which was not in existence and as the original file with the report of Registrar of this High Court was available before the Supreme Court hence the Supreme Court held that in view of peculiar facts and circumstances of the case it was not necessary to hear those innumerable students who had obtained admission in different medical colleges of Uttar Pradesh on the basis of the said order. There is one more point of distinction in the aforesaid authority of the Supreme Court. The fake order of the High Court Stated that the order was being passed on the basis of an earlier judgment of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court had later on modified the said judgment. The said judgment of the Supreme Court cannot therefore be applied to such revenue cases where entries in revenue records are to be cancelled and substituted particularly when entries are continuing for a long time, i.e., more than a year. In some cases it is found that entries continuing for several decades have been cancelled without hearing the person affected on the basis of the aforesaid Supreme Court authority.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 123 - M Rangnath - Full Document

Director General Of Police & Ors vs Mrityunjoy Sarkar & Ors on 18 March, 1996

(5)Director General of Police v. M. Sarkar, (1996) 3 SCR 530 (In this case constables were discharged from service on the ground that they produces a fake list from Employment Exchange without providing opportunity of hearing. Supreme Court approved the order of High Court setting aside discharge order on the ground of denial of opportunity of hearing).
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 23 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document

Godawat Pan Masala Products I.P. Ltd. & ... vs Union Of India & Ors on 2 August, 2004

(7)Godawat Pan Masala Products v. Union of India, (2004) SC 4057 (In this case it was held that notification prohibiting manufacture and sale etc. of pan masala and gutka was bad in law as it had been issued without providing opportunity to the manufactures of meeting the facts relied upon in the notification in respect of injurious effects of pan masala and gutka).
Supreme Court of India Cites 60 - Cited by 428 - Full Document
1   2 Next