Right to Cross examine even if no WS is filed

AIR 1977 SC 1867

Para 2: We have admitted the appeal and have heard learned counsel for both sides. The learned counsel for the respondents strenuously contends that the management has, by its conduct, forfeited its right to examine witnesses before the Tribunal. We are not impressed by this argument. The Tribunal refused to allow that management an opportunity to examine witnesses on the sole ground that it has not earlier submitted the written statement. That ground in an industrial matter, would not be sufficient to refuse examination of witnesses when the management later on pressed for it. This is against the principles of natural justice.

Sandeep Jalan

Advocate

https://vakeelkanumber.com/

Comments

Fraud / Misleading the Courts

AIR 2007 SC 1546 Para 21: Now, it is well settled principle of law that if any judgment or order is obtained by fraud, it cannot be said to be a judgment or order in law. Before three centuries, Chief Justice Edward Coke proclaimed; "Fraud avoids all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or temporal". Para 22: It is thus settled proposition of law that a judgment, decree or order obtained by playing fraud on the Court, Tribunal or Authority is a nullity and non est in the eye of law. Such a judgment, decree or order by the first Court or by the final Court has to be treated as nullity by every Court, superior or inferior. It can be challenged in any Court, at any time, in appeal, revision, writ or even in collateral proceedings. Para 23: In the leading case of Lazarus Estates Ltd. V/s. Beasley, 1956 1 AllER 341, Lord Denning observed: "No judgment of a court, no order of a Minister, can be allowed to stand, if it has been obtained by fraud."

Prescribed procedure must be followed

2015 (3) SCC 624 Para 22: Procedural norms, technicalities and processal law evolve after years of empirical experience, and to ignore them or give them short shrift inevitably defeats justice. ……..Laws of procedure have picturesquely been referred to as handmaidens to justice, but this does not mean that they can be wantonly ignored because, if so done, a miscarriage of justice inevitably and inexorably ensues. Statutory law and processal law are two sides of the judicial drachma, each being the obverse of the other. In the case in hand, had the Tenant diligently filed an appeal against the decree at least in respect of O.S. 5/78, the legal conundrum that has manifested itself and exhausted so much judicial time, would not have arisen at all. 2014 (2) SCC 401 Para 34: There is yet an uncontroverted legal principle that when the statute provides for a particular procedure, the authority has to follow the same and cannot be permitted to act in contravention o

Arbitrariness

The act of “arbitrariness” may ordinarily mean, exercise of powers or exercise of discretion, according to one whims and personal choices, taking into considerations the irrelevant factors, not taking into considerations the factors which should have been considered whilst taking decisions or whilst acting, or acting in disregard of express statutory mandate or acting in disregard of legal principles or in disregard of any principle or logic, common sense or fairness. Arbitrariness is violence to common sense of a prudent man. When discretion is assumed absolute, man has always suffered. The Rule of law prohibits arbitrary action and also makes it liable to be invalidated. The expression “Rule of Law” may have varied dimensions, and the most apt explanation to this expression appears to be, “The People have an absolute / unqualified right to be Ruled / governed/ regulated by Law, and not by individual whims and fancies”. This is also in fact and precisely the mandate of Article 1

Judgments High Courts & Apex Court

Search This Blog