Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.20 seconds)
V K Bharti vs General Manager E C Rly on 10 October, 2018 cites

R.P. Bhatt vs Union Of India And Ors on 14 December, 1986

In this regard, reference may be made to R.P. Bhatt vs Union Of India And Ors, AIR 1986 SC 1040 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that "There is no indication in the impugned order that the Director-General was satisfied as to whether the procedure laid down in the Rules had been complied with; and if not, whether such noncompliance had resulted in violation of any of the provisions of the Constitution or in failure of justice. We regret to find that the Director-General has also not given any finding on the crucial question as to whether the findings of the disciplinary authority were warranted by the evidence on record. It seems that he only applied his mind to the requirement of cl. (c) of r. 27(2), viz. whether the penalty imposed was adequate or justified in the facts and circumstances of the present case. There being non- compliance with the requirements of r. 27(2) of the Rules, the impugned order passed by the Director-General is liable to be set aside."
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 131 - A P Sen - Full Document

S.N. Mukherjee vs Union Of India on 28 August, 1990

"8. The purpose of disclosure of reasons, as held by a Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of S.N.Mukherjee vs. Union of India reported in (1990) 4 SCC 594, is that people must have confidence in the judicial or quasi-judicial authorities. Unless reasons are disclosed, how can a person know whether the authority has applied its mind or not? Also, giving of reasons minimizes chances of arbitrariness. Hence, it is an essential requirement of the rule of law that some reasons, at least in brief, must be disclosed in a judicial or quasi-judicial order, even if it is an order of affirmation".
Supreme Court of India Cites 37 - Cited by 1274 - S C Agrawal - Full Document

Mahabir Prasad Santosh Kumar vs State Of U.P. And Ors on 2 April, 1970

26. An identical question came to be decided by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M/s Mahavir Prasad Santosh Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Others 1970 SCC (1) 764 which was subsequently followed in a line of judgments. Having considered the legal requirement of passing speaking order by the authority, it was ruled that "recording of reasons in support of a decision on a disputed claim by a quasi-judicial authority ensures that the decision is reached according to law and is not the result of caprice, whim or fancy or reached on grounds of policy or expediency. A party to the dispute is ordinarily entitled to know the grounds on which the authority has rejected his claim. It was also held that while it must appear that the authority entrusted with the quasi-judicial authority has reached a conclusion of the problem before Page No. 11 him: it must appear that he has reached a conclusion which is according to law and just, and for ensuring that he must record the ultimate mental process leading from the dispute to its solution". Such authorities are required to pass reasoned and speaking order.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 348 - J C Shah - Full Document

M/S Kranti Asso. Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs Masood Ahmed Khan & Ors on 8 September, 2010

27. And in Kranti Associates Private Limited and Anr. Vs. Masood Ahmed Khan and Ors., (2010) 9 SCC 496, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that a quasi judicial authority must record reasons in support of its conclusions. The insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve the wider principle that justice must not only be done it must also appear to be done. In para-47, it has been held that:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 54 - Cited by 699 - Full Document

Ram Chander vs Union Of India & Ors on 2 May, 1986

29. After analyzing all the points raised by the applicant in this OA, we find that orders passed by DA and AA are wholly cryptic, non-speaking and without application of mind and have been passed in most casual and perfunctory manner as it has not been passed in accordance with the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Chander Vs. Union of India Page No. 14 and Ors. 1986 SCC (L&S) 383, N.M Arya Vs. United India Insurance Company - 2006 SCC (L&S) 840 and DFO Vs. Madhusudan Rao. 2008 Vol. 1 Supreme Today page 617 wherein it has been held that while deciding the representation or appeal or revision by the Competent Authority, speaking order should be passed. On perusal of appeal filed by the applicant, it is evident that the applicant raised several grounds in support of his case but the DA and the AA without considering each and every ground raised by the applicant, rejected his grounds of defence by a cryptic and non-speaking order.
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 290 - G L Oza - Full Document

Narinder Mohan Arya Son Of Late Shri H.K. ... vs United India Insurance Company Limited ... on 29 May, 2012

29. After analyzing all the points raised by the applicant in this OA, we find that orders passed by DA and AA are wholly cryptic, non-speaking and without application of mind and have been passed in most casual and perfunctory manner as it has not been passed in accordance with the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Chander Vs. Union of India Page No. 14 and Ors. 1986 SCC (L&S) 383, N.M Arya Vs. United India Insurance Company - 2006 SCC (L&S) 840 and DFO Vs. Madhusudan Rao. 2008 Vol. 1 Supreme Today page 617 wherein it has been held that while deciding the representation or appeal or revision by the Competent Authority, speaking order should be passed. On perusal of appeal filed by the applicant, it is evident that the applicant raised several grounds in support of his case but the DA and the AA without considering each and every ground raised by the applicant, rejected his grounds of defence by a cryptic and non-speaking order.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 5 - K Kannan - Full Document
1