In The Court of Hon'Ble Principal Family Judge, (Jurisdiction)
In The Court of Hon'Ble Principal Family Judge, (Jurisdiction)
In The Court of Hon'Ble Principal Family Judge, (Jurisdiction)
1. That I say, that I am the defendant in the above suit and the
applicant in the application. I am well conversant with the facts and
circumstances of the case and stand competent to swear to this
affidavit.
That I say, that notice in the suit was not duly served on me.
5. That I say, that I have got very serious contentions in the suit
and have records to show that all amounts due to the respondent-
plaintiff towards the aforementioned construction have been fully
paid against proper receipts issued by him and there is no amount
due from, and payable by me.
6. That I say, that the case has not reached the trial stage. Even the
issues have not been framed. The respondent-plaintiff will not
therefore in any way be prejudicially affected by setting aside the ex
parte order.
It seems reasonable to think that the legislature intended that an order under s. 3 should be
made after notice and hearing, so that no unfairness is done to anyone.
In our view the scheme and setting of s. 3 imply a notice and hearing to the person who
will be affected by the proposed requisitioning order.
Servant is 'property' and that his pension cannot be reduced without giving him
a hearing even though the relevant service rules do not expressly provide for a hearing.
Daud Ahmad and K. R. Erry hold that in an enactment which deprives a person of his
property, there is necessarily implied the prerequisite of hearing. These cases support our
construction that notice and hearing to the affected party is necessarily implied in s. 3. It
is not disputed on behalf of the District Magistrate that the requisitioning order was made
by him without giving notice and hearing to the appellant. So we hold that his order is
illegal.
This term paper deals with the second principle of natural justice. Right of fair hearing i.e.
audi alteram partem meaning one should not be condemned unheard.
It is of utmost importance that in making material statements and setting forth grounds in
applications for special leave made under Article 136 of the Constitution, care must be taken
not to make any statements which are inaccurate, untrue and misleading. In dealing with
applications for special leave, the Court naturally takes statements of fact and grounds of
fact contained in the petitions at their face value and it would be unfair to betray the
confidence of the Court by making statements which are untrue and misleading