Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.20 seconds)
The Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax And ... vs Rb Saire (Dead) Thru Lr. Sr Saire And Anor on 1 December, 2023 cites

State Bank Of Patiala & Ors vs S.K.Sharma on 27 March, 1996

13. State Bank of Patiala Vs. S. K. Sharma (supra) while summarizing the principles, which it has held not to be exhaustive, holds that in case of violation of a procedural 15 provision, the complaint should be examined from the point of view of prejudice. The judgment itself creates exceptions to this in respect of cases falling under 'no notice, no opportunity and no hearing categories'. As indicated above, the requirement of providing documents which form a part and parcel of the 20 chargesheet cannot be termed to be a procedural requirement WP 968 of 2008.odt 20 and thus the present case would clearly be covered by the exceptions as indicated in para 33(3) therein and there cannot be any question of applying the test of prejudice.
Supreme Court of India Cites 29 - Cited by 1234 - B P Reddy - Full Document

Union Of India & Ors vs B.V.Gopinath on 5 September, 2013

6. Mr. Anubhav Mardikar, learned counsel for the original respondent supports the impugned judgment and contends that supply of the entire documents relied upon in the chargesheet is a sine-qua-non, failure of which would vitiate the 15 entire enquiry on account of denial of a reasonable opportunity to meet the case claimed to have existed against the original respondent and would also be in violation of the principles of natural justice. It is also contended that the conduct of enquiry would not permit any extraneous material to be considered such 20 as the communication between Mr. Shrivastava, which was given WP 968 of 2008.odt 6 to the original respondent by the Presenting Officer, along with the prosecution brief, which was never taken on record during the enquiry proceedings, as a result of which, the right of the original respondent to deny the contents of the letter dated 31/08/1999 of Mr. Shrivastava was clearly thwarted, resulting in vitiation of 5 the enquiry. Learned counsel places reliance upon State of Uttar Pradesh and others Vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha (2010) 2 SCC 772; Union of India and others Vs. B.V. Gopinath (2014) 1 SCC 351; Bilaspur Raipur Kshetriya Gramin Bank and another Vs. Madanlal Tandon AIR 2015 SC 2876, in support of his contentions. 10
Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 278 - M Y Eqbal - Full Document

State Of U.P. & Ors vs Saroj Kumar Sinha on 2 February, 2010

6. Mr. Anubhav Mardikar, learned counsel for the original respondent supports the impugned judgment and contends that supply of the entire documents relied upon in the chargesheet is a sine-qua-non, failure of which would vitiate the 15 entire enquiry on account of denial of a reasonable opportunity to meet the case claimed to have existed against the original respondent and would also be in violation of the principles of natural justice. It is also contended that the conduct of enquiry would not permit any extraneous material to be considered such 20 as the communication between Mr. Shrivastava, which was given WP 968 of 2008.odt 6 to the original respondent by the Presenting Officer, along with the prosecution brief, which was never taken on record during the enquiry proceedings, as a result of which, the right of the original respondent to deny the contents of the letter dated 31/08/1999 of Mr. Shrivastava was clearly thwarted, resulting in vitiation of 5 the enquiry. Learned counsel places reliance upon State of Uttar Pradesh and others Vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha (2010) 2 SCC 772; Union of India and others Vs. B.V. Gopinath (2014) 1 SCC 351; Bilaspur Raipur Kshetriya Gramin Bank and another Vs. Madanlal Tandon AIR 2015 SC 2876, in support of his contentions. 10
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 718 - S S Nijjar - Full Document

Bilaspur Raipur K.Gramin Bank And Anr vs Madanlal Tandon on 15 May, 2015

6. Mr. Anubhav Mardikar, learned counsel for the original respondent supports the impugned judgment and contends that supply of the entire documents relied upon in the chargesheet is a sine-qua-non, failure of which would vitiate the 15 entire enquiry on account of denial of a reasonable opportunity to meet the case claimed to have existed against the original respondent and would also be in violation of the principles of natural justice. It is also contended that the conduct of enquiry would not permit any extraneous material to be considered such 20 as the communication between Mr. Shrivastava, which was given WP 968 of 2008.odt 6 to the original respondent by the Presenting Officer, along with the prosecution brief, which was never taken on record during the enquiry proceedings, as a result of which, the right of the original respondent to deny the contents of the letter dated 31/08/1999 of Mr. Shrivastava was clearly thwarted, resulting in vitiation of 5 the enquiry. Learned counsel places reliance upon State of Uttar Pradesh and others Vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha (2010) 2 SCC 772; Union of India and others Vs. B.V. Gopinath (2014) 1 SCC 351; Bilaspur Raipur Kshetriya Gramin Bank and another Vs. Madanlal Tandon AIR 2015 SC 2876, in support of his contentions. 10
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 2 - M Y Eqbal - Full Document
1