Tag: Natural Justice

Supreme Court Curbs “Prove Prejudice” Rule: A Landmark Win for Natural Justice
19Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Curbs “Prove Prejudice” Rule: A Landmark Win for Natural Justice

The Supreme Court ruled that violating mandatory procedural safeguards in disciplinary inquiries, like failing to question an employee on adverse evidence, inherently constitutes prejudice. Relying on undisclosed material, such as a vigilance report, to enhance punishment also violates natural justice. No independent proof of prejudice is required for such fundamental breaches. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, K. Prabhakar Hegde, was a senior officer and Zonal Head of Vijaya Bank (which later merged with Bank of Baroda). In 1999, he was served with notices alleging irregularities in sanctioning temporary overdrafts to various parties. Formal disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him in 2001. An inquiry officer was appointed, who submitted a report holding the charges proved. N...
Read More
Supreme Court Clarifies GST Law: When Can Central and State Authorities Investigate the Same Case?
17Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Clarifies GST Law: When Can Central and State Authorities Investigate the Same Case?

The Supreme Court held that the issuance of a summons under Section 70 of the CGST Act does not constitute the "initiation of proceedings" under Section 6(2)(b). The bar against parallel proceedings is triggered only upon the issuance of a show-cause notice, which formally crystallizes the subject matter and commences adjudication. Facts Of The Case: The petitioner, M/S Armour Security (India) Ltd., a company providing security services, was issued a show-cause notice dated 18.11.2024 by the State GST authority (Respondent No. 2) under Section 73 of the CGST Act. This notice raised a tax demand for the period April 2020-March 2021 on grounds of under-declared tax and excess Input Tax Credit (ITC) claims. Subsequently, on 16.01.2025, the Central GST authority (Respondent No. 1) conducted ...
Read More
Supreme Court Ruling: Port Tariffs Must Be Set By Experts, Not Arbitrators
14Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Ruling: Port Tariffs Must Be Set By Experts, Not Arbitrators

The Supreme Court held that tariff fixation for port facilities is a technical and expert-driven function, best adjudicated by specialized bodies like TAMP. It emphasized that contractual agreements cannot override statutory tariff-setting mechanisms under the Major Port Authorities Act, 2021. The Court remanded the matter to TAMP for fresh determination, underscoring the need for expert appraisal of tariff revisions and compliance with natural justice. Facts Of The Case: A bilateral agreement was executed in 1985 between Paradip Port Trust (now Authority) and Paradeep Phosphates Ltd. (PPL), then a public sector unit, for the exclusive use of a captive fertilizer berth. The agreement stipulated a tariff schedule, with a clause for future mutual enhancement. In 1993, the Port unilaterally...
Read More
Beyond Impeachment: Supreme Court Validates Its Internal Mechanism for Judicial Misconduct
9Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Beyond Impeachment: Supreme Court Validates Its Internal Mechanism for Judicial Misconduct

The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the 'In-House Procedure' for investigating allegations of judicial misconduct. It ruled that the mechanism, which can recommend a judge's removal, is a valid exercise of the CJI's authority under the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985, and does not violate the constitutional scheme for impeachment. Facts Of The Case: In March 2025, a fire broke out in the store-room of a Delhi High Court judge's official bungalow while he was away. During efforts to douse the flames, officials discovered burnt currency notes on the premises. This discovery raised serious suspicions of misconduct, potentially violating the values outlined in the Restatement of Judicial Life. Consequently, the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court sought an explanation from the ...
Read More
Supreme Court Empowers Pollution Boards to Levy Environmental Damages
5Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Empowers Pollution Boards to Levy Environmental Damages

The Supreme Court held that Pollution Control Boards can impose restitutionary and compensatory damages, including ex-ante bank guarantees, under Sections 33A and 31A of the Water and Air Acts. This power is distinct from punitive penalties and is grounded in the 'Polluter Pays' principle to remediate environmental damage. Facts Of The Case: The Delhi Pollution Control Committee (DPCC) issued show cause notices in 2006 to multiple entities, including residential and commercial complexes, for operating without the mandatory "consent to establish" and "consent to operate" under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. As a condition for granting consent, the DPCC demanded the payment of fixed sums a...
Read More
Employers Must Accommodate: Supreme Court’s Landmark Ruling on Medical Disability & Jobs
29Aug By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Employers Must Accommodate: Supreme Court’s Landmark Ruling on Medical Disability & Jobs

This Supreme Court held that a binding Memorandum of Settlement under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which specifically provided alternate employment for colour-blind drivers, created an enforceable statutory obligation on the employer. The subsequent settlement and internal circulars could not override this specific contractual right, and the Corporation's failure to explore redeployment violated principles of natural justice and statutory compliance. Facts Of The Case: The appellant was appointed as a driver by the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC) in 2014. During a subsequent periodic medical examination, he was found to be colour blind and declared medically unfit to continue in his role as a driver. Following this, the appellant sought alternate employment...
Read More
No Pay Cut Without a Chance to Argue: Supreme Court Sides with Ex-Navy Personnel Against Bank
26Aug By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

No Pay Cut Without a Chance to Argue: Supreme Court Sides with Ex-Navy Personnel Against Bank

The Supreme Court held that pay fixation of re-employed ex-servicemen is governed solely by government guidelines, which banks cannot override. It ruled that reducing pay without providing an opportunity of hearing violates principles of natural justice, rendering such an administrative action legally unsustainable. Facts Of The Case: After retiring from the Indian Navy, the appellants were re-employed by Punjab National Bank between 2015-2017 as Single Window Operators. Their initial pay was fixed at a higher amount, with four appellants receiving ₹40,710 and one receiving ₹34,160. However, following a 2018 clarification from the Indian Banks' Association (IBA) that capped the maximum basic pay for ex-servicemen at ₹31,540, the bank issued a circular and subsequently reduced the appella...
Read More
Supreme Court Quashes Life Ban on Kerala Cricketer, Slams “Non-Transparent” Ombudsman Process
25Aug By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Quashes Life Ban on Kerala Cricketer, Slams “Non-Transparent” Ombudsman Process

The Supreme Court held that the Ombudsman's proceedings lacked transparency and violated principles of natural justice by not providing the appellant with copies of orders and a fair hearing. The subsequent blacklisting by the cricket association, based on these flawed proceedings, was also set aside. The matter was remanded for a fresh hearing. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, a former Ranji Trophy player and member of a district cricket association, filed an original application before the Ombudsman of the Kerala Cricket Association (KCA). He sought directions to frame and implement uniform model bye-laws for all district associations, based on the Lodha Committee recommendations, and to ensure elections were conducted in conformity with these bye-laws. The Ombudsman dismissed his app...
Read More
Win for Taxpayers: Supreme Court Says GST Authorities Can’t Skip Adjudication After Payment
22Aug By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Win for Taxpayers: Supreme Court Says GST Authorities Can’t Skip Adjudication After Payment

The Supreme Court held that payment of tax and penalty under Section 129 of the CGST Act does not absolve the proper officer from passing a reasoned order under Section 129(3). Such an order is mandatory to safeguard the taxpayer’s right to appeal and ensure compliance with principles of natural justice and due process under Article 265 of the Constitution. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, M/s ASP Traders, a Karnataka-based dealer, consigned 17,850 kg of dry arceanut to a Delhi-based company. During transit, the goods were transhipped, and seven bags went missing. The vehicle was subsequently detained by the Uttar Pradesh Mobile Squad in Jhansi. A notice was issued under Section 129(3) of the CGST Act, alleging discrepancies including the shortfall in quantity and questioning the existe...
Read More
Supreme Court :No Time Bar for Railways to Recover Penalty on Misdeclared Cargo Under Section 66 of Railways Act
18Jun By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court :No Time Bar for Railways to Recover Penalty on Misdeclared Cargo Under Section 66 of Railways Act

The Supreme Court of India held that demand notices for misdeclaration of goods under Section 66 of the Railways Act, 1989, can be raised by railway authorities even after delivery of goods. The Court clarified that Section 66 does not specify a stage for imposing such charges , distinguishing it from Sections 73 and 78, which relate to punitive charges for overloading and require recovery before delivery. The Court also stated that the High Court's reliance on Jagjit Cotton Textile Mills v. Chief Commercial Superintendent N.R. was erroneous as that case pertained to overloading and Section 54, not misdeclaration under Section 66. Facts Of The Case: The case involves appeals filed by the Union of India against M/s Kamakhya Transport Pvt. Ltd. and others, stemming from a judgment ...
Read More