Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (0.36 seconds)Section 58 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
M. Venkataramana Hebbar (D) By L.Rs vs M. Rajagopal Hebbar & Ors on 5 April, 2007
In M. Venkataramana Hebbar (Dead) by LRS v.
M. Rajagopal Hebbar & others, (2007) 6 SCC 401, the
apex Court held the averments made in the plaint not been
denied in the written statement, the said averment is
deemed to be admitted. Therefore, in terms of Section 58 of
the Evidence Act, facts admitted need not be proved.
Therefore, the Court was entitled to draw the inference that
the same has been admitted.
R. Pandian And Anothera. Deivendran Son ... vs State Of Tamil Naduthrough The ... on 21 October, 1997
In R. v. Secy. Of State for Home Affairs, ex p.
Hosenball, Geoffrey Lane, LJ, 1977 3 All ER 452 (DC & CA),
Page 20 of 27
preferred the homely phrase 'common fairness' in defining
natural justice.
Rattan Lal Sharma vs Managing Committee, Dr. Hari Ram ... on 14 May, 1993
The view of Tucker, LJ, in Russell's
case (supra) has been approved by the Supreme Court of
India in Rattan Lal Sharma v Managing Committee,
(1993) 4 SCC 10 : AIR 1993 SC 2115.
A. K. Kraipak & Ors. Etc vs Union Of India & Ors on 29 April, 1969
In A.K. Kraipak and others v. Union of India,
AIR 1970 SC 150: (1969) 2 SCC 262, is a landmark in the
growth of this doctrine. Speaking for the Constitution
Bench, Hegde, J. observed thus:
Maneka Gandhi vs Union Of India on 25 January, 1978
In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978
SC 597 : (1978) 1 SCC 248, law has done further blooming
of this concept. This decision has established beyond doubt
that even in an administrative proceeding involving civil
consequences doctrine of natural justice must be held to be
applicable.
Swadeshi Cotton Mills vs Union Of India on 13 January, 1981
In Swadeshi Cotton Mills v. Union of India,
AIR 1981 SC 818, the meaning of 'natural justice' came for
consideration before the apex Court and the apex Court
observed as follows:-
Basudeo Tiwary vs Sido Kanhu University And Others on 17 September, 1998
In Basudeo Tiwary v Sido Kanhu University
and others (1998) 8 SCC 194, the apex Court held that
natural justice is an antithesis of arbitrariness. It, therefore,
follows that audi alteram partem, which is facet of natural
justice is a requirement of Art.14.
M/S. Nagarjuna Construction Co. Ltd vs Govt. Of A.P. & Ors on 20 October, 2008
In Nagarjuna Construction Company Limited
v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, (2008) 16 SCC 276,
the apex Court held as follows: