National Central Co-Operative Bank Limited v.
Ajay Kumar and Others (AIR 1994
SC 39)
In this case, while deciding upon an issue wherein the “proceedings before the Division
Bench of the High Court were admitted without serving notice to one of the parties”,
was challenged, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that:
“It is well settled that no adverse orders can be passed against a party without giving it
opportunity to place its case on this very ground the writ petition was allowed in part by the
learned single Judge. Applying the same principle to the Letters Patent appeal, it was
necessary for the Division Bench to have issued notice to the appellant and given it an
opportunity to contest the appeal before proceeding to finally dispose it of. Since this has not
been done, we set aside the impugned Judgment and remit the Letters Patent Appeal for fresh
decision by the Division Bench.”
Accordingly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in this case, allowed the appeal made before it.
National Textile Workers Union v. P.R. Ramakrishna (AIR 1983 SC 75)
In this case before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, Justice Bhagwati while adjudicating upon
whether “in a winding up proceedings of a company, its workers are entitled to appear
at the hearing of the winding up petition whether to support or to oppose it and whether
they have a right to be heard before the winding up petition is admitted.” observed that:
“The audi alteram partem rule which mandates that no one shall be condemned unheard is
one of the basic principles of natural justice and if this rule has been held to be applicable is
a quasi- judicial or even in an administrative proceeding involving adverse civil
consequences, it would a fortiori apply in a judicial proceeding such as a petition for
winding up of a company. It is difficult to imagine how any system of law which is designed
to promote justice through fair play in action can permit the court to make a winding up
order which has the effect of bringing about termination of services of the workers without
giving them an opportunity of being heard against the making of such order. It would be
violative of the basis principles of fair procedure and unless there is express provisions in the
Companies Act, 1956, which forbids the workers from appearing at the hearing of the
winding up petition and participating in it, the workers must be held entitled to appear and
be heard in the winding up petition.”
State of Orissa vs. Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei and Others (AIR 1967 SC 1269)
In this case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court while upholding the Hon’ble High Court’s view as
to “vitiating an order of retirement on grounds that the person served the order of
retirement was not given a reasonable opportunity of showcasing against the proposed
change in the date of birth recorded in her service book” observed that:
“The deciding authority, it is true, is not in the position of a Judge called upon to decide an
action between contesting parties, and strict compliance with the forms of judicial procedure
may not be insisted upon. He is however under a duty to give the person against whom an
enquiry is held an opportunity to set up his version or defence and an opportunity to correct
or to controvert any evidence in the possession of the authority which is sought to be relied
upon to his prejudice. For that purpose the person against whom in enquiry is held must be
informed of the case he is called upon to meet, and the evidence in support thereof. The rule
that a party to whose prejudice an order is intended to be passed is entitled to a hearing
applies alike to judicial tribunals and bodies of persons invested with authority to adjudicate
upon matters involving civil consequences. It is one of the fundamental rules of our
constitutional set-up that every citizen is protected against exercise of arbitrary authority by
the State or its officers. Duty to act judicially would therefore arise from the very nature of
the function intended to be performed: it need not be shown to be superadded. If there is
power to decide and determine to the prejudice of a person, duty to act judicially is implicit
in the exercise of such power. If the essentials of justice be ignored and an order to the
prejudice of a person is made, the order is a nullity. That is a basic concept of the rule of law
and importance thereof transcends the significance of a decision in any particular case.”
Kothari Filaments and another vs. Commissioner of Customs (Port), Kolkata and
Others ((2009) 2 SCC 192)
In this case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court upon noticing that a “party was not granted an
opportunity to explain the material used against it” upon the Hon’ble High Court
dismissing the writ petition filed before it by the party challenging the decision of the
Hon’ble Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, Calcutta, observed that:
“The Act does not prohibit application of the principles of natural justice. The Commissioner
of Customs either could not have passed the order on the basis of the materials which were
known only to them, copies whereof were not supplied or inspection thereto had not been
given. He, thus, could not have adverted to the report of the overseas enquiries. A person
charged with misdeclaration is entitled to know the ground on the basis whereof he would be
penalized. He may have an answer to the charges or may not have. But there cannot be any
doubt whatsoever that in law he is entitled to a proper hearing which would include supply of
the documents. Only on knowing the contents of the documents, he could furnish an effective
reply.”
