Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.23 seconds)
R.Pattabhi (Died) vs The Tamil Nadu Minerals Limited on 25 August, 2010 cites

Divl. Forest Officer, Kothagudem & Ors vs Madhusudhan Rao on 8 February, 2008

35. The next contention of the learned counsel for Appellants is that Appellate Authority is expected to apply its mind to the findings and while confirming the order, the Appellate Authority must also furnish reasons. Submitting that in the instant case, the order of Appellate Authority is laconic, the learned counsel for Appellants placed reliance upon (2008) 3 SCC 469 [Divisional Forest Officer, Kothagudem and others v. Madhusudhan Rao] wherein the Supreme Court held as under:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 214 - A Kabir - Full Document

Dalmia Dadri Cement, Ltd. vs Shri Murari Lal Bikaneria on 19 August, 1970

17. The next objection of the Appellants is that appointment of Standing Counsel of TAMIN Mr.N.Jothi, Advocate as Enquiry Officer vitiates the proceedings. Learned counsel for Appellants submitted that the learned single Judge relying on 1964 (2) LLJ 139 (SC) [Saran motors v. Vishwanath and another] and 1970 93) SCC 259 [M/s.Dalmia Dadri Cement Limited v. Shri Murari Lal Bikaneria] rejected the objection of the 1st Appellant as to the appointment of Standing Counsel as Enquiry Officer. Learned counsel for Appellants would further contend that in those two cases, a person some times employed by the employer as lawyer and a junior Advocate occasionally assisting the counsel for the Management in some matters were appointed as Enquiry Officer. Whereas in the instant case, the Standing Counsel for the Respondent had been appointed as Enquiry Officer. It was further contended that being the Standing Counsel, the Enquiry Officer would certainly take decision infavour of the Management and this has occasioned in serious violation of principles of natural justice attending domestic enquiries and the proceedings are therefore vitiated.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 21 - G K Mitter - Full Document

Hari Khemu Gawali vs The Deputy Commissioner Of ... on 8 May, 1956

In Hari Khemu Gawali v. The Deputy Commissioner of Police [AIR 1956 SC 559] an externment order was challenged on the ground that since the police department which heard and decided the case was the same, the element of departmental bias vitiated administrative action and the Court rejected the challenge on the ground that so long as two functions (initiation and decision) were discharged by two separate officers, though they were affiliated to the same department, there was no bias.
Supreme Court of India Cites 51 - Cited by 66 - B P Sinha - Full Document

The General Secretary, South Indian ... vs The Managing Director, Kerala State ... on 12 May, 2006

In General Secretary, South Indian Cashew Factories Worker's Union v. Managing Director, Kerala State Cashew Development Corporation, Ltd. and others [2006 (3) LLN 761], it was held that the inquiry had been conducted by the Assistant Personnel Manager of the Corporation and the Union raised an industrial dispute in which Labour Court set aside the inquiry on the ground of institutional bias as the enquiry officer was part of the same institution and had also made certain uncorroborated remarks against the employee. In appeal, the Court held that mere presumption of bias cannot be sustained on the sole ground that the officer was a part of the management and where findings of the enquiry officer were based on evidence and were not perverse, the mere fact that the inquiry was conducted by an officer of the management would not vitiate the inquiry. On a bare perusal of these decided cases, it could be strongly established that the fact that P.K.Mukherjee, the enquiry officer, who was also the company lawyer cannot be considered as being "biased and partisan" who favoured and was partial towards the management of the company.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 143 - A Pasayat - Full Document

Haryana Financial Corporation & Anr vs Kailash Chandra Ahuja on 8 July, 2008

23. The High Court, unfortunately, failed to appreciate and apply in its proper perspective the ratio laid down in B.Karunakar, though the High Court was conscious of the controversy before it. The Court also noted the submission of the Corporation that there was "no whisper" in the writ petition showing any prejudice to the delinquent as required by B.Karunakar, but allowed the writ petition and set aside the order of punishment observing that in such cases, prejudice is "writ large".
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 227 - C K Thakker - Full Document
1   2 Next