Natural Justice Principle Case Identification
The question focuses on the principle that the rules of natural justice are not restricted to only what are strictly defined as 'quasi-judicial' functions. This concept broadens the application of fairness in decision-making processes.
This important legal principle, emphasizing the wide applicability of natural justice beyond narrow definitions, was significantly elaborated upon and established in a landmark judicial pronouncement.
Landmark Case for Natural Justice Scope
The case that laid down this expansive principle is:
- A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India AIR 1970 SC 150: In this judgment, the Supreme Court of India held that the rules of natural justice apply to all administrative actions affecting rights, irrespective of whether they are traditionally classified as judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative. The court stressed that the essence lies in the duty to act fairly.
Important Questions from Mixed Topic (AIBE)
- Directions : The following question consists of two statements, one labelled as Assertion (A) and the other labelled as Reason (R). You are to examine these two statements carefully and decide if the Assertion (A) and the Reason (R) are individually true and if so, whether the Reason (R) is a correct explanation of the Assertion (A).
Assertion (A) : The Constitution of India does not adopt a rigid separation of powers among the Legislature, Executive and Judiciary.
Reason (R) : The constitutional framework incorporates a system of checks and balances, allowing limited functional overlap among the organs of the State.
In the context of the Constitution of India, which one of the following is correct ? - Ajeet Singh, a famous singer, enters into a contract with Yash Aditya Music Company agreeing to perform exclusively for them for 2 years and not to perform for any other company during that period. After one year, Ajeet Singh refuses to perform for Yash Aditya Music Company and begins performing for BR Chopra & Company. Yash Aditya Music Company files a suit seeking an injunction restraining Ajeet Singh from performing for BR Chopra & Company.
Which of the following statements is correct under the Specific Relief Act, 1963 ? - Under constitutional jurisprudence in India, repeated re-promulgation of Ordinances without placing them before the Legislature was described by the Supreme Court as a "fraud on the Constitution" in which decision ?
- Under the Patents Act, 1970, a patent is granted to an inventor in India. Which of the following correctly reflects a limitation on the patentee's rights under the law ?
Directions : The following question consists of two statements, one labelled as Assertion (A) and the other labelled as Reason (R). You are to examine these two statements carefully and decide if the Assertion (A) and the Reason (R) are individually true and if so, whether the Reason (R) is a correct explanation of the Assertion (A).
Assertion (A) : An ex parte decree may be set aside if the defendant satisfies the court that he was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing when the suit was called for hearing.
Reason (R) : Under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the court must be satisfied that the summons was not duly served or that the defendant was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing when the suit was called for hearing.
Mark your answer as :
