Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 27 (0.47 seconds)
M/S Paras Bhavani Steel Private Limited vs The Authorized Officer, Bank Of Baroda on 18 January, 2023 cites

Kavita W/O Sunder Shankardas ... vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors. Etc. Etc on 28 July, 1981

This Court then went on to hold that normally, lawyers have no place in proceedings before the Advisory Board, and then went on to refer to Kavita [Kavita v. State of Maharashtra (1), (1981) 3 SCC 558 : 1981 SCC (Cri) 743] . It was finally held that since the detaining authority was allowed to Page 44 of 57 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 20:55:43 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/18968/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/01/2023 undefined be represented by counsel before the Advisory Board, whereas the detenu was not, the order of detention would be quashed as this would be discriminatory.
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 120 - O C Reddy - Full Document

Crescent Dyes And Chemicals Ltd. vs Ram Naresh Tripathi on 16 December, 1992

NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/18968/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/01/2023 undefined (India) Ltd. v. Workmen, (1965) 2 SCR 139 : AIR 1965 SC 1392],Crescent Dyes and Chemicals Ltd. v. Ram Naresh Tripathi [Crescent Dyes and Chemicals Ltd. v. Ram Naresh Tripathi, (1993) 2 SCC 115 : 1993 SCC (L&S) 360] and Indian Overseas Bank v. Officers' Assn. [Indian Overseas Bank v. Officers' Assn., (2001) 9 SCC 540 : 2002 SCC (L&S) 1043] "
Supreme Court of India Cites 38 - Cited by 142 - Full Document

Wiseman And Another vs Borneman And Others. on 1 November, 1967

Even in Wiseman [Wiseman v. Borneman, 1971 AC 297 : (1969) 3 WLR 706 (HL)] where all that was sought to be done was to see if there was a prima facie case to proceed with a tax case where, inevitably, a fuller hearing would be extended at a later stage of the proceedings, Lord Reid, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest and Lord Wilberforce suggested 'that there might be exceptional cases where to decide upon it ex parte would be unfair, and it would be the duty of the tribunal to take appropriate steps to eliminate unfairness' (Lord Denning, M.R., in Howard v. Borneman (2) [Howard v. Borneman (2), 1975 Ch 201 : (1974) 3 WLR 660 (CA)] summarised the observations of the Law Lords in this form). No doctrinaire approach is desirable but the court must be anxious to salvage the cardinal rule to the extent permissible in a given case. After all, it is not obligatory that counsel should be allowed to appear nor is it compulsory that oral evidence should be adduced. Indeed, it is not even imperative that written statements should be called for. Disclosure of the prominent circumstances and asking for an immediate explanation orally or otherwise may, in many cases, be sufficient compliance. It is even conceivable that an urgent meeting with the parties concerned summoned at an hour's notice, or in a crisis, even a telephone call, may suffice." (emphasis in original) Page 43 of 57 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 20:55:43 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/18968/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/01/2023 undefined
Calcutta High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 155 - Full Document

Kalindi & Others vs Tata Locomotive & Engineering Co., Ltd on 25 March, 1960

Ltd. [N. Kalindi v. Tata Locomotive & Engg. Co. Ltd., (1960) 3 SCR 407 : AIR 1960 SC 914] , (ii) Brooke Bond (India) (P) Ltd. v. S. Subba Raman [Brooke Bond (India) (P) Ltd. v. S. Subba Raman, (1961) 2 LLJ 417 (SC)] and (iii) Dunlop Rubber Co. (India) Ltd. v. Workmen [Dunlop Rubber Co. (India) Ltd. v. Workmen, (1965) 2 SCR 139 : AIR 1965 SC 1392] that there is no right to representation as such unless the company by its Standing Orders recognises such a right.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 106 - K C Gupta - Full Document
1   2 3 Next