Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 32 (0.25 seconds)
Chandra Bhan Singh vs State Of U.P. And Anr. on 6 January, 2003 cites

Tata Oil Mills Co. Ltd vs Its Workmen on 31 March, 1964

"9. This leaves over the contention that before examining the witnesses Subramaniam was subject to a cross-examination. This was said to offend the principles of natural justice and reliance was placed on, Tata Oil Mills Co. Ltd. v. Its Workmen, 1963-2 Lab LJ 78 (SC) ; Sur Enamel and Stamping Works Ltd. v. Their Workmen, 1963-2 Lab LJ 367 ; AIR 1963 SC 1914 ; Meenglas Tea Estate v. Its Workmen, 1963 (2) Lab LJ 392 (SC) : AIR 1963 SC 1719 and Associated Cement Co. Ltd. v. Their Workmen, 1963-2 Lab LJ 396 (SC). These cases no doubt lay down that before a delinquent is asked anything all the evidence against him must be led. This cannot be an invariable rule in all cases. The situation is different where the accusation is based on a matter of record or the facts are admitted. In such a case it may be permissible to draw, the attention of the delinquent to the evidence on the record which goes against him and which if he cannot satisfactorily explain must lead to a conclusion of guilt. In certain cases it may even be fair to the delinquent to take his version first so that the enquiry may cover the point of difference and the witnesses may be questioned properly on the aspect of the case suggested by him. It is all a question of Justice and fair play. If the second procedure leads to a just decision of the disputed points and is fairer to the delinquent than the ordinary procedure of examining evidence against him first, no exception can be taken to it. It is, however, wise to ask the delinquent whether he would like to make a statement first or wait till the evidence is over but the failure to question him in this way does not ipso facto vitiate the enquiry unless prejudice is caused. It is only when the person enquired against seems to have been held at a disadvantage or has objected to such a course that the enquiry may be said to be vitiated. It must, however, be emphasised ; that in all cases in which the facts in controversy are disputed the procedure ordinarily to be followed is the one laid down by this Court in the cited cases.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 221 - P B Gajendragadkar - Full Document

Meenglas Tea Estate vs Its Workmen on 22 February, 1963

"9. This leaves over the contention that before examining the witnesses Subramaniam was subject to a cross-examination. This was said to offend the principles of natural justice and reliance was placed on, Tata Oil Mills Co. Ltd. v. Its Workmen, 1963-2 Lab LJ 78 (SC) ; Sur Enamel and Stamping Works Ltd. v. Their Workmen, 1963-2 Lab LJ 367 ; AIR 1963 SC 1914 ; Meenglas Tea Estate v. Its Workmen, 1963 (2) Lab LJ 392 (SC) : AIR 1963 SC 1719 and Associated Cement Co. Ltd. v. Their Workmen, 1963-2 Lab LJ 396 (SC). These cases no doubt lay down that before a delinquent is asked anything all the evidence against him must be led. This cannot be an invariable rule in all cases. The situation is different where the accusation is based on a matter of record or the facts are admitted. In such a case it may be permissible to draw, the attention of the delinquent to the evidence on the record which goes against him and which if he cannot satisfactorily explain must lead to a conclusion of guilt. In certain cases it may even be fair to the delinquent to take his version first so that the enquiry may cover the point of difference and the witnesses may be questioned properly on the aspect of the case suggested by him. It is all a question of Justice and fair play. If the second procedure leads to a just decision of the disputed points and is fairer to the delinquent than the ordinary procedure of examining evidence against him first, no exception can be taken to it. It is, however, wise to ask the delinquent whether he would like to make a statement first or wait till the evidence is over but the failure to question him in this way does not ipso facto vitiate the enquiry unless prejudice is caused. It is only when the person enquired against seems to have been held at a disadvantage or has objected to such a course that the enquiry may be said to be vitiated. It must, however, be emphasised ; that in all cases in which the facts in controversy are disputed the procedure ordinarily to be followed is the one laid down by this Court in the cited cases.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 240 - M Hidayatullah - Full Document

Town Area Committee, Jalalabad vs Jagdish Prasad And Ors. on 7 April, 1978

To the same effect is the judgment of the Apex Court In Town Area Committee, Jalalabad v. Jagdish Prasad and others, in which it was held that "a reasonable opportunity is a term of well known legal significance and Includes an opportunity given to the employee to cross-examine the witnesses examined against him ; and to lead defence in support of his version,"
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 44 - S M Ali - Full Document

S.C. Girotra vs United Commercial Bank (Uco Bank) And ... on 18 February, 1994

In S.C. Girotra v. United Commercial Bank. 1995 Supp (3) SCC 212, the Supreme Court set aside the dismissal order which was passed without giving the employee an opportunity of cross-examination. In Punjab National Bank A.I.P.N.B.E. Federation, AIR 1960 SC 160 (vide para 66), the Supreme Court held that in such enquiries evidence must be recorded in the presence of the charge sheeted employee and he must be given an opportunity to rebut the said evidence.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 119 - J S Verma - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next