Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Y.V. CHANDRACHUD, CJI., E.S. VENKATARAMIAH AND R.B. MISRA, JJ.
M/s. Bombay Oil Industries Pvt. Ltd., Appellant
Versus
Union of India and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 3191 of 1983 with S. L. P. (Civil) No. 4311 of 1983
Decided on 14-11-1983.
Advocates appeared
Mr. Anil B. Divan, Sr. Advocate and Mr. B. V. Desai, Advocate, for Appellant; Mr. P. R. Mridul, Sr. Advocate M/s. Ravindra Narain, D. N. Misra and Ashok Sagar, Advocates with him, (in C. A. No. 3191 of 1983). Mr. M. L. Talukdar, Sr. Advocate, Mr. C. V. Subba Rao and Mr. R. N. Poddar, Advocates, with him, Mr. D. N. Misra and R. N. Poddar, Advocates (in S. L. P. (Civil) No. 4311 of 1983), for Respondents.
ORDER — The order of the Government dated November 30, 1982 which is impugned in these proceedings leaves much to be desired. But we do not propose to admit the appeal since, after hearing a longish argument from Shri Anil B. Divan on behalf of the appellant, we are satisfied on the material produced before us and on perusal of the counter affidavit of the Government that, there were good reasons for passing the impugned order. We must, however, impress upon the Government that while disposing of applications under Sections 21, 22 and 23 of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 it must give good reasons in support of its order and not merely state its bald conclusion. The faith of the people in administrative tribunals can be sustained only if the tribunals act fairly and dispose of the matters before them by well considered orders. The relevant material must be made available to the objectors because, without it, they cannot possibly meet the claim or contentions of the applicants under Sections 21, 22 and 23 of the M. R. T. P. Act. The refusal of the Government to furnish such material to the objectors can amount to a denial of a reasonable opportunity to the objectors to meet the applicants case. And denial of a reasonable opportunity to meet the other mens case is denial of natural justice.
2. On the question of the need to give reasons in support of the conclusions to which the Government has come, the authorities concerned may, with profit, see the judgments of this Court in Union of India v. Mohan Lal Capoor (1974) 1 SCR 797, Siemens Engineering & Manufacturing Co. of India Limited v. Union of India 1976 (Suppl) SCR 489 and Uma Charan v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1982) 1 SCR 353..
3. With these observations we dismiss the special leave petition and the appeal.
Spl. leave petition dismissed.
For Citation: AIR 1984 SC 160 = 1984 UJ(SC) 25
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
