Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.57 seconds)Section 22 in The Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
State Of West Bengal & Ors vs Kamal Sengupta & Anr on 16 June, 2008
24. However, we are of the view that it is not necessary to go into these cases in view of clear findings regarding the RA having been rendered infructuous. It would be apt to take a note of sub-clause (vii) of Para 35 of the judgment in the case of West Bengal & Ors. Vs. Kamalsengupta & Anr. (supra). This sub-clause provides that the Tribunal has to confine its adjudication with reference to the materials which were available at the time of the initial decision. The happening of some subsequent event or development is not to be taken note for declaring the initial order/decision vitiated by an error of judgment. We have fully taken note of the argument tendered by the learned counsel for the respondents that the order dated 17.8.2012 has rendered the present RA infructuous.
Article 32 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 114 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Board Of Trustees Of The Port Of Bombay vs Dilipkumar Raghavendranath Nadkarni ... on 17 November, 1982
Indrani Bai vs Union Of India on 21 April, 1994
(ii) Indrani Bai Vs. Union of India [1994 SCC Suppl (2) 256
State Bank Of India And Others vs D.C. Aggarwal And Another on 13 October, 1992
3. A Division Bench of the Tribunal having heard the parties at length, found that the impugned order inflicting penalty suffers from legal infirmity on three counts, i.e., (a) the impugned penalty order has been passed before the supply of CVC report to the applicant; (b) the non-supply of UPSC report before the passing of the impugned penalty order has violated the principles of natural justice; and (c) non-speaking and non-reasoned penalty order passed by the competent authority, and, therefore, in the light of the law enunciated by the Apex Court in State Bank of India and others v D. C. Aggarwal and another [(1993) 1 SCC 13 and Union of India and others v S. K. Kapoor [Civil Appeal No.5341 of 2006 decided on 16.03.2011], disposed of the OA with the following order:
Trojan & Co. Ltd vs Rm. N. N. Nagappa Chettiar on 20 March, 1953
i) Because, when order dated 23.05.2012 in OA No. 313/2010 was passed by the Ld. Tribunal, it was in cognizance of the receipt of the Written submissions on behalf of the Applicant (Annexure A-3, pages 45-48 of R.A.). Therein the legal pleas pertaining to the violation of the statutory and mandatory provisions contained in the AIS (D&A) Rules, 1965 for conduct of the inquiry proceedings were highlighted showing violation of the principals of natural justice and complete deprivation of reasonable opportunity to the applicant. But, unfortunately, all of them were not taken into consideration and reflected in order dated 23.05.2012 passed by the Ld. Tribunal. Points submitted in written statement, which were also the part of the pleadings have been taken into consideration in the order dated 23.05.2012 (specifically in Para 8) Points which are not part of pleadings and specifically prayed have found no review value. It was held by the Honble Supreme Court in Trojan & Co. v. RM.N.N. Nagappa Chettiar, AIR 1953 SC 235 that the decision of a case cannot be based on grounds outside the pleadings of the parties and it is the case pleaded that has to be found. Without an amendment of the plaint, the court was not entitled to grant the relief not asked for and no prayer was ever made to amend the plaint so as to incorporate in it in an alternative case.
T.P. Moideen Koya vs Government Of Kerala And Ors on 30 September, 2004
iii) Because, on pointing out the procedural illegalities that vitiated the inquiry from an earlier stage including examination of witnesses and denial of opportunity to file a defense brief in the inquiry. It was observed by the Honble High Court that for the issues that had been raised before the Ld. Tribunal and not considered by it, the remedy lay before the Ld. Tribunal, being the Court of first instance to approach by way of review. This has been reflected in the order passed by the Honble High Court on 11.07.2012 in W.P.(C) No.4007/2012 (Annexure A-2, page 44 of R.A.). Issues prayed and pressed before the Tribunal have been considered. Issues, which are not pressed and argued before the Tribunal, need not be examined afresh. Not covered under the parameters for review, as it was observed in Para 16 by the Honble Supreme Court in T.P. Moideen Koya Vs. Govt. of Kerala & Ors., JT 2004(8)SC 383, that however, a grievance is raised that the said contention has not been dealt with or decided in the judgment of this Court. It is, therefore, apparent that the only plea raised in the present petition had also been raised in the Special Leave Petition which had been filed earlier seeking quashing of the detention order and the release of the petitioner. It is neither a subsequent development nor new plea which may not have been available at the earlier stage. If the plea raised has not been considered in the judgment rendered by this Court on 28.07.2003 in Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.1215 of 2003, as submitted by the petitioner, it cannot be a ground to entertain a fresh petition under Article 32 of the Constitution on the principles discussed above. In the course of judgment Courts normally deal with only such points which are pressed and argued. If fresh petition under Article 32 is permitted on the ground that certain point has not been dealt with in the judgment a party can file as many petitions as he likes and take one or two new points every time. Besides, if such a course was allowed to be adopted, the doctrine of finality of judgments pronounced by the Supreme Court would also be materially affected. Therefore, having regard to the facts pleaded and the grounds raised, the present petition is not maintainable.