Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.20 seconds)A. K. Kraipak & Ors. Etc vs Union Of India & Ors on 29 April, 1969
No such opportunity was provided to the
petitioner and order dated 9.9.1998 was passed in violation of principles of natural Justice. It is well-settled law that not only the judicial or quasi-judicial orders ; but also administrative and executive orders by which the civil rights of any person are likely to be affected, are to be passed after affording an opportunity of hearing to the person concerned. Failure to afford an opportunity of hearing or to explain, his case, renders the order nullity and unenforceable in law. Reference in this regard may be made to the decisions of the Apex Court in S. L. Kapoor v. Jag Mohan, AIR 1981 SC 136 : Smt. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597 ; A. K. Kraipak v. Union of India, AIR 1970 SC 150 and Slate of Orissa v. Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei, AIR 1967 SC 1269.
State Of Orissa vs Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei & Ors on 7 February, 1967
No such opportunity was provided to the
petitioner and order dated 9.9.1998 was passed in violation of principles of natural Justice. It is well-settled law that not only the judicial or quasi-judicial orders ; but also administrative and executive orders by which the civil rights of any person are likely to be affected, are to be passed after affording an opportunity of hearing to the person concerned. Failure to afford an opportunity of hearing or to explain, his case, renders the order nullity and unenforceable in law. Reference in this regard may be made to the decisions of the Apex Court in S. L. Kapoor v. Jag Mohan, AIR 1981 SC 136 : Smt. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597 ; A. K. Kraipak v. Union of India, AIR 1970 SC 150 and Slate of Orissa v. Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei, AIR 1967 SC 1269.
Maneka Gandhi vs Union Of India on 25 January, 1978
No such opportunity was provided to the
petitioner and order dated 9.9.1998 was passed in violation of principles of natural Justice. It is well-settled law that not only the judicial or quasi-judicial orders ; but also administrative and executive orders by which the civil rights of any person are likely to be affected, are to be passed after affording an opportunity of hearing to the person concerned. Failure to afford an opportunity of hearing or to explain, his case, renders the order nullity and unenforceable in law. Reference in this regard may be made to the decisions of the Apex Court in S. L. Kapoor v. Jag Mohan, AIR 1981 SC 136 : Smt. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597 ; A. K. Kraipak v. Union of India, AIR 1970 SC 150 and Slate of Orissa v. Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei, AIR 1967 SC 1269.
Ramana Dayaram Shetty vs The International Airport Authority Of ... on 4 May, 1979
1 and 2 in their counter-affidavits, petitioner cannot be said to be ineligible or disqualified for allotment of the house in dispute. It is well-settled law that the State or its Instrumentalities and functionaries cannot discriminate between similarly situated persons. Under the law similarly situated persons are entitled to equality before law and equal protection of laws. A reference in this regard may be made to the decisions of the Apex Court in A. L. Kalra v. Project and Equipment Corporation of India Ltd., AIR 1984 SC 1361 ; Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India and others.
State Of U. P vs Deoman Upadhyaya on 6 May, 1960
AIR 1979 SC 1628 : State of U. P. v. Deoman Upadhyaya, AIR 1960 SC 1125 ; Buddhan Choudhary and others v. State of Bihar, AIR 1955 SC 191 and Ram Prasad Narayan Sahl and another v. State of Bihar and others. AIR 1953 SC 215.
A.L.Kalara vs The Project & Equipment Corporation Of ... on 1 May, 1984
1 and 2 in their counter-affidavits, petitioner cannot be said to be ineligible or disqualified for allotment of the house in dispute. It is well-settled law that the State or its Instrumentalities and functionaries cannot discriminate between similarly situated persons. Under the law similarly situated persons are entitled to equality before law and equal protection of laws. A reference in this regard may be made to the decisions of the Apex Court in A. L. Kalra v. Project and Equipment Corporation of India Ltd., AIR 1984 SC 1361 ; Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India and others.
1