Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.22 seconds)

Gorkha Security Services vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors on 4 August, 2014

8. The absence of procedural fairness becomes all the more aggravated in the stated impact of the clause including the absence of a provision for appeal, the certainty of loss of reputation, deprivation of work and the arbitrary nature of keeping the period of loss of business uncertain and all 8 of these at the whim of DVC. The absence of any opportunity to the Contractor to rebut the imputation of a poor performance rating including the absence of personal hearing/representation makes clause 29.0 draconian and arbitrary. It is now well established that unless a statutory provision specifically or by necessary implication excludes the application of the rules of natural justice, any action prejudicially affecting another, must conform with the rules of natural justice: Gorkha Security Services v. Government (NCT of Delhi); (2014) 9 SCC 105.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 636 - A K Sikri - Full Document

Umc Technologies Private Ltd. vs Food Corporation Of India on 16 November, 2020

In UMC Technologies Private Limited vs. Food Corporation of India; (2021) 2 SCC 551, the Supreme Court strongly opined that the first principle of civilised jurisprudence is that a person against who any action is sought to 10 be taken or whose rights and interests are to be affected should be given a reasonable opportunity to defend himself. The Supreme Court proceeded to hold that the notice to be served on the person should clearly mention the grounds necessitating action and should also specifically mention the penalty proposed.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 224 - S A Nazeer - Full Document

K.D.Sharma vs Steel Authorities Of India Ltd.& Ors on 9 July, 2008

K.D. Sharma vs. Steel Authority of India Limited; (2008) 12 SCC 481 involved the appellant giving a wrong information to the Court contrary to the material before the Court in relation to service of a notice. Both decisions were on totally different facts. In any event, this Court has found that the petitioners have not suppressed any material facts which would have a bearing on the adjudication.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 513 - C K Thakker - Full Document
1