Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 18 (0.42 seconds)
Dilipkumar M.Rathod vs Union Of India on 8 October, 2021 cites

Union Of India vs Ram Lakhan Sharma on 2 July, 2018

20. Resultantly, this Court is of the opinion that the ratio laid down in decision of the Apex Court rendered in case of UNION OF INDIA VS. RAM LAKHAN SHARMA (supra) shall need to be applied clearly in the case of the petitioner and consequently,, the impugned orders dated 27.05.2002 passed by the Disciplinary Authority and by the Revisional Authority on dated 20.06.2003 are to be Page 50 of 51 Downloaded on : Sun Jan 16 22:54:46 IST 2022 C/SCA/16255/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/10/2021 quashed and set aside.
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 82 - A Bhushan - Full Document

Hadibandhu Das vs District Magistrate, Cuttack & Anr on 2 May, 1968

11. Apt would be to refer to some of the Page 42 of 51 Downloaded on : Sun Jan 16 22:54:46 IST 2022 C/SCA/16255/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/10/2021 decisions, which learned advocate, Mr.Shah has relied on. In case of Hadibandhu Das vs. District Magistrate, reported in 1968 AIR (Ori) 148 the question before the Court was whether the petitioner had understood the grounds, which were communicated to him at the time of detention, were in English language.
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 99 - J C Shah - Full Document

Harikisan vs The State Of Maharasthtra & Others on 31 January, 1962

11.2 In case of Harikisan vs. State of Maharashtra (supra), it was a case of preventive detention, the grounds communicated in English language not known to the detenue, the Court held that it prevented him from effectively representing against the order of detention. The communication, according to the Court, must being imparting to the detenue sufficient knowledge of all the grounds on which the order of Page 44 of 51 Downloaded on : Sun Jan 16 22:54:46 IST 2022 C/SCA/16255/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/10/2021 detention is based. Any oral translation or explanation given by the Police Officer servicing those on the detenue would not amount to communicating the grounds. Communication must mean bringing home to the detenue effective knowledge of the facts and circumstances on which the order of detention is based.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 59 - B P Sinha - Full Document

Tara Chand Khatri vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi And Ors. on 26 November, 1976

68. The judgment of R.P.Bhatt (supra) further relied upon another Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Som Datta vs. Union of India and others, reported in AIR 1969 SC 414 and also another decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Tara Chand Khatri vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and others, reported in AIR 1977 SC 567.
Supreme Court of India Cites 27 - Cited by 102 - J Singh - Full Document

Punjab National Bank And Ors.The Chief ... vs Sh. Kunj Behari Misra, Sh. Shanti Prasad ... on 19 August, 1998

In this context reference is made of a case of this Court in Punjab National Bank and others vs. Kunj Behari Misra, 1998 (7) SCC 84. In the above case, this Court had occasion to consider the provisions of Punjab National Bank Officer Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1977. Regulation 7 provides for action on the enquiry report. Regulation 7 as extracted in paragraph 10 of the judgment is as follows:
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 929 - Full Document

Suresh Koshy George vs The University Of Kerala & Ors on 15 July, 1968

"25. Rules of natural justice have been recognised and developed as principles of administrative law. Natural justice has many facets. Its all facets are steps to ensure justice and fair play. This Court in Suresh Koshy George vs. University of Kerala and others, AIR 1969 SC 198 had occasion to consider the principles of natural justice in the context of a case where disciplinary action was taken against a student who was alleged to have adopted malpractice in the examination. In paragraph 7 this Court held that the question whether the requirements of natural justice have been met by the procedure adopted in a given case must depend to a great extent on the facts and circumstances of the case in point, the constitution of Tribunal and the rules under which it functions. Following was held in paragraphs 7 and 8:
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 348 - K S Hegde - Full Document

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

26. A Constitution Bench of this Court has elaborately considered and explained the principles of natural justice in A.K. Kraipak and others vs. Union of India and others, AIR 1970 SC 150. This Court held that the aim of the rules of natural justice is to secure justice or to put it negatively to prevent miscarriage of justice. The concept of natural justice has undergone a great deal of change in recent years. Initially recognised as consisting of two principles that is no one shall be a judge in his own cause and no decision shall be given against a party without affording him a reasonable hearing, various other facets have been recognised. In paragraph 20 following has been held:
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 1426 - Full Document

Bharath Electronics Ltd. vs K. Kasi on 17 January, 1986

29. M.Rama Jois, J. of the Karnataka High Court had occasion to consider the above aspect in Bharath Electronics Ltd. vs. K. Kasi, ILR 1987 Karnataka 366. In the above case the order of domestic inquiry was challenged before the Labour and Industrial Tribunal. The grounds taken were, that inquiry is vitiated since Presenting Officer was not appointed and further Inquiry Officer played the role of prosecutor. This Court held that there is no Page 35 of 51 Downloaded on : Sun Jan 16 22:54:46 IST 2022 C/SCA/16255/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/10/2021 legal compulsion that Presenting Officer should be appointed but if the Inquiry Officer plays the role of Presenting Officer, the inquiry would be invalid. Following was held in paragraphs 8 and 9:
Karnataka High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 16 - Full Document
1   2 Next