Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (0.35 seconds)

State Of U.P vs Harendra Arora & Anr on 2 May, 2001

"Even under general law i.e. the Code of Civil Procedure, there are various provisions viz. Sections 99-A and 115 besides Order 21 Rule 90 where merely because there is defect, error or irregularity in the order, the same would not be liable to be set aside unless it has prejudicially affected the decision. Likewise, in the Code of Criminal Procedure also, Section 465 lays down that no finding, sentence or order passed by a competent court shall be upset merely on account of any error, omission or irregularity unless in the opinion of the court a failure of justice has, in fact, been occasioned thereby. We do not find any reason why the principle underlying the aforesaid provisions would not apply in case of the statutory provisions like Rule 55-A of the Rules in relation to disciplinary proceeding. Rule 55-A referred to above embodies in it nothing but the principles of reasonable opportunity and natural justice".
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 192 - B N Agrawal - Full Document

K. L. Tripathi vs State Bank Of India And Others on 4 October, 1983

In the case of K.L.TRIPATHI vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA [(1984) 1 SCC 43), while considering the question 'whether violation of each and every facet of principles of natural justice has the effect of vitiating the enquiry', the Honourable Apex Court has held that 'the punishment imposed cannot be said to be vitiated on account of an opportunity of cross-examination of certain witnesses not having been afforded to the delinquent' and observed thus:
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 474 - S Mukharji - Full Document
1   2 Next