Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.25 seconds)Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Ramachandra Narayan Nayak vs Karnataka Neeravari Nigam Ltd. & Ors on 27 August, 2013
In support of
his submissions, counsel relied on the judgments of the
Supreme Court in Basudeo Tiwary v. Sido Kanhu
University & Ors. 1, Ramchandra Narayan Nayak v.
Karnataka Neeravari Nigam Ltd. & Ors. 2, Mahipal Singh
Tomar v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. 3, SMS
Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Neeta Bhalla & Anr. 4, S.
Srikanth Singh v. North East Securities Ltd. & Anr. 5 and
Sunil Bhati Mittal v. Central Bureau of Investigation 6.
Mahipal Singh Tomar vs State Of U.P. & Others on 3 February, 2010
In support of
his submissions, counsel relied on the judgments of the
Supreme Court in Basudeo Tiwary v. Sido Kanhu
University & Ors. 1, Ramchandra Narayan Nayak v.
Karnataka Neeravari Nigam Ltd. & Ors. 2, Mahipal Singh
Tomar v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. 3, SMS
Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Neeta Bhalla & Anr. 4, S.
Srikanth Singh v. North East Securities Ltd. & Anr. 5 and
Sunil Bhati Mittal v. Central Bureau of Investigation 6.
S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd vs Neeta Bhalla And Anr on 20 September, 2005
In support of
his submissions, counsel relied on the judgments of the
Supreme Court in Basudeo Tiwary v. Sido Kanhu
University & Ors. 1, Ramchandra Narayan Nayak v.
Karnataka Neeravari Nigam Ltd. & Ors. 2, Mahipal Singh
Tomar v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. 3, SMS
Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Neeta Bhalla & Anr. 4, S.
Srikanth Singh v. North East Securities Ltd. & Anr. 5 and
Sunil Bhati Mittal v. Central Bureau of Investigation 6.
K. Srikanth Singh vs North East Securities Ltd. And Anr on 20 July, 2007
In support of
his submissions, counsel relied on the judgments of the
Supreme Court in Basudeo Tiwary v. Sido Kanhu
University & Ors. 1, Ramchandra Narayan Nayak v.
Karnataka Neeravari Nigam Ltd. & Ors. 2, Mahipal Singh
Tomar v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. 3, SMS
Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Neeta Bhalla & Anr. 4, S.
Srikanth Singh v. North East Securities Ltd. & Anr. 5 and
Sunil Bhati Mittal v. Central Bureau of Investigation 6.
Sunil Bharti Mittal vs Cbi on 9 January, 2015
In support of
his submissions, counsel relied on the judgments of the
Supreme Court in Basudeo Tiwary v. Sido Kanhu
University & Ors. 1, Ramchandra Narayan Nayak v.
Karnataka Neeravari Nigam Ltd. & Ors. 2, Mahipal Singh
Tomar v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. 3, SMS
Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Neeta Bhalla & Anr. 4, S.
Srikanth Singh v. North East Securities Ltd. & Anr. 5 and
Sunil Bhati Mittal v. Central Bureau of Investigation 6.
Canara Bank vs V.K. Awasthy on 31 March, 2005
Counsel submitted that it was for the Appellant therefore
to ensure that the members of the team constituted for the
work of verification and check are men of integrity and
character. He had to ensure that formal contractual
conditions are in place so that each member of the team acts
in impartial and independent manner and there is no conflict
of interest. As an Accredited Energy Auditor and as Vice
President of the firm, the Appellant was responsible for
constitution of an impartial team. The Appellant has failed to
carry out his responsibility because the signatures on the
undertaking were found to be forged. The Appellant himself
has signed on this undertaking. The Appellant cannot avoid
the consequences of his actions. So far as opportunity of
hearing is concerned, counsel relied on Canara Bank v.
V.K. Awasthy 7. Counsel submitted, relying on this judgment,
that where grant of opportunity in terms of principles of
7
(2005) 6 SCC 321
Page 12 of 22
Judgment
natural justice do not improve the situation "useless formality
theory" can be pressed into service. Counsel submitted that
the case of BEE is so strong that giving a personal hearing will
be a useless formality. Counsel submitted that in the
circumstances, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
Delhi Transport Corporation vs D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress on 4 September, 1990
"9. The law is settled that non-arbitrariness is an
essential facet of Article 14 pervading the entire
realm of State action governed by Article 14. It has
come to be established, as a further corollary, that
the audi alteram partem facet of natural justice is
also a requirement of Article 14, for natural justice is
the antithesis of arbitrariness. In the sphere of public
employment, it is well settled that any action taken
by the employer against an employee must be fair,
just and reasonable which are the components of fair
treatment. The conferment of absolute power to
terminate the services of an employee is an antithesis
Page 18 of 22
Judgment
to fair, just and reasonable treatment. This aspect
was exhaustively considered by a Constitution Bench
of this Court in Delhi Transport Corpn. v. D.T.C.
Mazdoor Congress, AIR 1991 SC 101.
Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr vs The Chiief Election Commissioner, New ... on 2 December, 1977
10. In order to impose procedural safeguards, this
Court has read the requirement of natural justice in
many situations when the statute is silent on this
point. The approach of this Court in this regard is that
omission to impose the hearing requirement in the
statute under which the impugned action is being
taken does not exclude hearing -- it may be implied
from the nature of the power -- particularly when the
right of a party is affected adversely. The justification
for reading such a requirement is that the court
merely supplies omission of the legislature (vide
Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commr., (1978)
1 SCC 405) and except in case of direct legislative
negation or implied exclusion (vide S.L. Kapoor v.
Jagmohan, (1980) 4 SCC 379)."