Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.25 seconds)
Bidyut Kumar Mitra Alias B. K. Mitra vs The State Bank Of India & Ors on 6 February, 2009 cites

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

With regard to the decision of State Bank of Patiala Vs. S. K. Sharma(supra), we find that the above decision is also relied upon by the appellant. In that case the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down certain basic principles of natural justice for applying on the basis of the facts and circumstances of different cases. Since we have already decided that non-supply of the documents under reference caused prejudice to the appellant, applying the basic principles of natural justice as laid down in the above decision the order under challenge in this case is liable to be set aside.
Supreme Court of India Cites 29 - Cited by 1234 - B P Reddy - Full Document

The State Bank Of India And Anr. vs H.K. Dogra And Anr. on 24 April, 1995

(Emphasis supplied) Therefore, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside on that ground also. We do not find much force on the submissions made on behalf of the respondent bank that the decision of State Bank of Indis Vs. H. K. Dogra(Supra) helps the respondent bank. Because in the above decision the court found substantial compliance of the principles of natural justice after being satisfied that there had been application of mind on the part of the disciplinary authority.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 5 - S Kumar - Full Document

Nagaraj Shivarao Karjagi vs Syndicate Bank Head Office Manipal And ... on 30 April, 1991

We fail to understand as to how the decision of Nagaraj Shivarao Karjagi(supra) helps the respondent bank in any way because in that case the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided that he disciplinary authority cannot act under the dictation of the Central Vigilance Commission or the Central Government. The above facts and circumstances are not applicable in the instant case in view of the distinguished features of this case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 153 - K J Shetty - Full Document

Chandrama Tewari vs Union Of India, Through General ... on 18 November, 1987

We do not find that the decision of Chandrama Tewari (Supra) has any manner of application in this case. The fact of non-supply of documents mentioned in the charge-sheet was under consideration in that case and the above matter was decided on the basis of the facts and circumstances involved in that case. In the instant case the question of violation of the principles of natural justice due to non-supply of defence documents and non-production of defence witness is under consideration on the basis of different facts and circumstances together.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 135 - K N Singh - Full Document

A. K. Kraipak & Ors. Etc vs Union Of India & Ors on 29 April, 1969

Where the statute is silent and a contrary intention cannot be implied the requirement of the applicability of the rule of natural justice is read into it to ensure fairness and to protect the action from the charge of arbitrariness. Natural justice has thus secured a foothold to supplement enacted law by operating as an implied mandatory requirement thereby protecting it from the vice of arbitrariness. Courts presume this requirement in all its width as implied unless the enactment supplies indications to be contrary as in the resent case. This Court in A.K. Kraipak Vs. Union of India after referring to the observations in State of Orissa V. Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei observed as under (SCC p.272, para 20) 'The aim of the rules of natural Justice is to secure justice or to put it negatively to prevent miscarriage of justice. These rules can operate only in areas not covered by any law validly made. In other words they do not supplant the law of the land but supplement it.' These observations make it clear that if the statute, expressly or by necessary implication omits the application of the rule of natural justice, the statute will not be invalidated for this omission on the ground of arbitrariness."
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 1426 - Full Document

State Of Orissa vs Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei & Ors on 7 February, 1967

Where the statute is silent and a contrary intention cannot be implied the requirement of the applicability of the rule of natural justice is read into it to ensure fairness and to protect the action from the charge of arbitrariness. Natural justice has thus secured a foothold to supplement enacted law by operating as an implied mandatory requirement thereby protecting it from the vice of arbitrariness. Courts presume this requirement in all its width as implied unless the enactment supplies indications to be contrary as in the resent case. This Court in A.K. Kraipak Vs. Union of India after referring to the observations in State of Orissa V. Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei observed as under (SCC p.272, para 20) 'The aim of the rules of natural Justice is to secure justice or to put it negatively to prevent miscarriage of justice. These rules can operate only in areas not covered by any law validly made. In other words they do not supplant the law of the land but supplement it.' These observations make it clear that if the statute, expressly or by necessary implication omits the application of the rule of natural justice, the statute will not be invalidated for this omission on the ground of arbitrariness."
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 1001 - J C Shah - Full Document
1   2 Next