Back
Supreme Court Of India
(R.C. LAHOTI, CJI., G.P. MATHUR AND C.K. THAKKER, JJ.)
STATE BANK OF INDIA -Appellant;
Versus
M.S. BASI AND OTHERS Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 4099 of 2004
decided on July 13,2004
Constitution of India, Article 136 - Natural justice - Opportunity of hearing- High Court passed the order without affording opportunity of hearing to he opposite party- Therefore the impugned order set aside- Liberty allowed to the respondent No. 1 to move a fresh application seeking such relief as may be advised, to be heard and decided by the High Court after giving the opposite parties an opportunity of hearing. [Paras 4 and 5]
ORDER
1. The only person interested in contesting this special leave petition insofar as the impugned order dated 30-1-2004 passed by the High Court is concerned, is Respondent I, who is present on caveat.
2.Leave granted.
3. With the consent of the parties, the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant and Respondent 1 are heard finally.
4. It is not disputed and as is clear from the subsequent order dated 3-2-2004 passed by the High Court that the impugned order dated 30-1-2004 was passed without affording the party adversely affected i.e. the appellant before us, an opportunity of hearing. For this short reason, the impugned order deserves to be set aside.
5. The appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 30-1-2004 is set aside. Liberty is allowed to Respondent 1 to move a fresh application seeking such relief as may be advised which shall be heard and decided by the High Court only after giving the opposite parties an opportunity of hearing.
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
