Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.25 seconds)M/S Kesar Enterprises Ltd vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 6 July, 2011
27. To bolster his submission, he cited certain decisions, reported at (1993) 4
SCC 727 (Managing Director Ecil Hyderabad Etc. .. vs. B. Karunakar Etc.),
AIR 2011 SC 2709 (Kesar Enterprises Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.), (2010) 4
SCC 785 (Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Works
Contract and Leasing, Kota vs. Shukla And Brothers), (2020) 16 SCC 489
(Silppi Constructions Contractors vs. Union of India & Ors.), (2021) 12 SCC
11
780 (Benedict Benis Kinny vs. Tulip Brian Miranda & Ors.) & (2021) 19 SCC
706 (State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Sudhir Kumar Singh & Ors.).
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Sudhir Kumar Singh on 16 October, 2020
In Sudhir Kumar Singh (supra), the Hon'ble Court ruled that no
prejudice arises from a breach of natural justice if the person concerned does
not dispute the case against him or it, whether through estoppel,
acquiescence, waiver, or failure to challenge or deny the facts. In that case, the
Court can held that no real prejudice was caused. In the present case, the
petitioner's legal or fundamental rights, if any, arise from the terms of the
contract. Being fully aware that the Railway authorities had reserved the right
to terminate the contract and forfeit the Security Deposit (SD) in the event of a
breach, without any prior notice, the petitioner voluntarily accepted these
terms and entered into the agreement. Therefore, in light of the facts, it can be
concluded that no prejudice was caused to the petitioner either due to the
omission of re-weighment of parcels at PDDU station or the absence of any
prior notice before termination of the contract and forfeiture of the SD. It is
pertinent to note that the termination of the contract and forfeiture of the
Security Deposit did not debar the petitioner from participating in future
auction processes.
Gorkha Security Services vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors on 4 August, 2014
51. The present case serves as a reminder of the well-established principles of
law, as enunciated in Gorkha Security Services v. Government (NCT of Delhi),
(2014) 9 SCC 105. The Supreme Court observed that the rules of natural justice
are not embodied rules, nor are they elevated to the status of fundamental rights.
Their primary objective is to ensure justice and prevent its miscarriage. It is a
settled proposition of law that, unless a statutory provision expressly or by
necessary implication excludes them, the exercise of any power that prejudicially
affects an individual must conform to the principles of natural justice. It is
axiomatic that principles of natural justice do not supplant the law, but
supplement the law. Its application may be excluded wither expressly or by
necessary implication.
Dr Umrao Singh Choudhary vs State Of M.P on 2 May, 1994
(See, judgment of Dr. Umrao Singh Choudhary vs. State
of Madhya Pradesh, reported at (1994) 4 SCC 328). In the present case, as noted
earlier, the Railway authorities reserved its right to terminate the contract and
forfeit the SD without any notice. Taking note of this stipulation in the contract,
the petitioner entered into the contract.
The Silppi Constructions Contractors vs Union Of India on 21 June, 2019
27. To bolster his submission, he cited certain decisions, reported at (1993) 4
SCC 727 (Managing Director Ecil Hyderabad Etc. .. vs. B. Karunakar Etc.),
AIR 2011 SC 2709 (Kesar Enterprises Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.), (2010) 4
SCC 785 (Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Works
Contract and Leasing, Kota vs. Shukla And Brothers), (2020) 16 SCC 489
(Silppi Constructions Contractors vs. Union of India & Ors.), (2021) 12 SCC
11
780 (Benedict Benis Kinny vs. Tulip Brian Miranda & Ors.) & (2021) 19 SCC
706 (State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Sudhir Kumar Singh & Ors.).
Benedict Denis Kinny vs Tulip Brian Miranda And 7 Ors on 2 May, 2019
27. To bolster his submission, he cited certain decisions, reported at (1993) 4
SCC 727 (Managing Director Ecil Hyderabad Etc. .. vs. B. Karunakar Etc.),
AIR 2011 SC 2709 (Kesar Enterprises Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.), (2010) 4
SCC 785 (Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Works
Contract and Leasing, Kota vs. Shukla And Brothers), (2020) 16 SCC 489
(Silppi Constructions Contractors vs. Union of India & Ors.), (2021) 12 SCC
11
780 (Benedict Benis Kinny vs. Tulip Brian Miranda & Ors.) & (2021) 19 SCC
706 (State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Sudhir Kumar Singh & Ors.).
1