Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (0.28 seconds)S. L. Kapoor vs Jagmohan & Ors on 18 September, 1980
20. Second, principles of natural justice carry two exceptions as
established through common law; first i f upon admitted or indisputable
facts only one conclusion was possible, then in such a case, the
principle that breach of natural justice was in itself prejudice, would
not apply. In other words if no other conclusion was possible on
admitted or indisputable facts, it is not necessary to quash the order
which was passed in violation of natural justice. In addition to breach
of natural justice, de facto breach needs to be proved. In absence of de
facto breach, other than non issue of notice, had to be proved. (See : S.
L. Kapoor vs Jagmohan & Ors (1980) 6 SCC 379 and K. L. Tripathi vs
State Bank Of India And Others (1984) 1 SCC 43).
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961
Aligarh Muslim University And Ors vs Mansoor Ali Khan on 28 August, 2000
21. This court can usefully refer to the observations of Apex Court
as made in Aligarh Muslim University (Supra) also, while relying upon
earlier judgments in following manner :
Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos And ... vs The Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius And ... on 21 May, 1954
The words "any other sufficient reason" have been interpreted in
Chhajju Ram Vs. Neki, (1921-22) 49 IA 144 and approved by this
Court in the case of Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos Vs. Most Rev.
Mar Poulose Athanasius, AIR 1954 SC 526 to mean "a reason
sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in the rule".
State Of West Bengal & Ors vs Kamal Sengupta & Anr on 16 June, 2008
14. It is also held by the Apex Court in the case of State Of West
Bengal & Ors. Vs. Kamal Sengupta & Anr., (2008) 8 SCC 612 that
mistake or error apparent on the face of the record means that mistake
or error which is prima facie visible and does not require any detail
examination. Erroneous view of law is not a ground for review and
review cannot partake the category of the appeal.
M.C. Mehta vs Union Of India And Ors on 27 July, 1999
"21. As pointed recently in M.C. Mehta Vs. Union of India (1999 (6)
SCC 237), there can be certain situations in which an order passed in
violation of natural justice need not be set aside under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. For example where no prejudice is caused to the
person concerned, interference under Article 226 is not necessary.
Sirsi Municipality By Its President ... vs Cecelia Kom Francis Tellis on 18 January, 1973
In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner
placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sirsi
Municipality Vs. Cecelia Kom Francis Tellis, AIR 1973 SC 855,
Basudeo Tiwary Vs. Sido Kanhu University and Ors., (1998) 8 SCC
194 and Prakash Ratan Sinha Vs. State of Bihar, (2009) 14 SCC
690 to submit that an inquiry ought to have been conducted as
principles of natural justice are being violated in this case.
K. L. Tripathi vs State Bank Of India And Others on 4 October, 1983
In
K.L. Tripathi Vs. State Bank of India ( 1984(1) SCC 43), Sabyasachi
Mukherji, J. ( as he then was) also laid down the principle that not mere
violation of natural justice but de facto prejudice (other than non-issue of
notice) had to be proved. It was observed: quoting Wade Administrative
Law, (5th Ed.PP.472-475) as follows: ( para