State Bank Of Patiala & Ors vs S.K.Sharma on 27 March, 1996
Indeed, these principles have been enunciated by the Apex Court in Krishan Lal v. State of J&K and State Bank of Patiala v. S.K. Sharma (referred to 2 supra).
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 49 (0.94 seconds)Rajendra Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh& Others on 8 August, 1996
They have been reiterated in Rajendra Singh v. State of M.P. (referred to 5 supra).
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
M.C. Mehta vs Union Of India & Ors on 18 March, 2004
8. Suffice to quote the decision of the Apex Court in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (referred to 6 supra) rendered while placing reliance upon its earlier judgment in Gadde Venkateswara Rao v. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh . At the end of para 18 it has been held thus:
Aligarh Muslim University And Ors vs Mansoor Ali Khan on 28 August, 2000
7. It is by now well-settled that violation of natural justice is by itself no longer sufficient to invalidate the State action. A clear prejudice that has been suffered by the violation needs to be pleaded and demonstrated. This is the concurrent and operative doctrine. Vide K.L. Tripathi v. S.B.I. (4 supra); Rajendra Singh v. State of M.P. (5 supra); M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (6 supra); Aligarh Muslim University v. Mansoor Ali Khan (7 supra) above referred to and S.L. Kapoor v. Jagmohan ..
Article 309 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Managing Director Ecil Hyderabad Etc. ... vs B. Karunakar Etc. Etc on 1 October, 1993
(b) In the case of violation of a procedural provision, which is of a mandatory character, it has to be ascertained whether the provision is conceived in the interest of the person proceeded against or in public interest. If it is found to be the former, then it must be seen whether the delinquent officer has waived the said requirement, either expressly or by his conduct, If he is found to have waived it, then the order of punishment cannot be set aside on the ground of the said violation. If, on the other hand, it is found that the delinquent officer/employee has not waived it or that the provision could not be waived by him, then the Court or Tribunal should make appropriate directions (include the setting aside of the order of punishment), keeping in mind the approach adopted by the Constitution Bench in B. Karunakar, Managing Director, ECIL v. B. Karunakar . The ultimate test is always the same, viz., test of prejudice or the test of fair hearing as it may be called.
V. Venkata Bharani vs High Court Of Andhra Pradesh And Anr. on 16 October, 2001
It requires to be noticed that in Venkata Bharani (2 supra), one of the apparent reasons for the Full Bench declining grant of relief to the petitioner on application of doctrine of prejudice, was that the petitioner did not raise either the question of violation of principles of natural justice at any stage nor had put forth any grievance as regards procedural fairness. The only grievance was that the enquiry was conducted under nonexistent and repealed rules and therefore the punishment awarded was without jurisdiction and no independent prejudice need be established in such circumstances.
Article 311 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
S. L. Kapoor vs Jagmohan & Ors on 18 September, 1980
that the breach (of principles of natural justice) is itself a prejudice and no other de facto prejudice need be established was no doubt reiterated in S.L. Kapoor v. Jagmohan. Chinnappa . Reddy, J. in Jagmohan however admitted exceptions to the strict rule namely where on the admitted or indisputable facts only one conclusion was possible, it was not necessary to quash the impugned proceedings though in violation of the principles of natural justice.