Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.50 seconds)

State Of M.P.& Ors vs Sanjay Nagayach & Ors on 16 May, 2013

8. Learned Government Advocate further submitted that so far as reliance placed by the petitioner in the case of Sanjay Nagayach (supra), the same is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case since the case relates to supersession of an elected Managing Committee/Board, whereas in the present case, the Administrator has been removed.
Supreme Court of India Cites 32 - Cited by 251 - K Radhakrishnan - Full Document

Kranti Associates (I) Pvt. Ltd vs Masood Ahmad Khan on 6 July, 2007

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order dt.25.03.2020 is contrary to the basic principle of natural justice and has been passed in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. No opportunity of hearing has been provided to the petitioner before passing the impugned order. The impugned order is without W.P. No.7496/2020 & Connected Matters 18 any reason, therefore, the same is contrary to the law as Laid down by the Apex Court in the case of M/s Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. and another Vs. Masood Ahmed Khan and others reported in (2010) 9 SCC 496. The impugned order entails the civil consequences, therefore, without opportunity of hearing the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Administrator could not have been cancelled.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 1 - Cited by 550 - Full Document
1