Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. Supreme Court Of India
  4. /
  5. 1996
  6. /
  7. January

N Venkateswara Rao & Ors Etc vs S T A & Ors Etc

Supreme Court Of India|21 November, 1996
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

Summary

Issue: Lack of impleadment of the appellant as a party to the proceedings before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal
Rule: Indian Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, and the Constitution of India
Application: The appellant, J. Jose Dhanapaul, was not impleaded as a party to the proceedings before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, despite being affected by the impugned order annulling the appointment of S. Thomas. The Tribunal erred in not following the provisions of the Indian Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, and the Constitution of India, by not impleading the appellant as a party to the proceedings.
Conclusion: The Tribunal erred in not impleading the appellant as a party to the proceedings, which is a violation of the appellant's right to fairness and equality before the law.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 1 PETITIONER:
J. JOSE DHANAPAUL.
Vs. RESPONDENT:
S. THOMAS & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 16/02/1996 BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
G.B. PATTANAIK (J) CITATION:
1996 SCC (3) 587 JT 1996 (3) 197 1996 SCALE (2)SP73 ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
Leave granted.
O R D E R We have heard learned counsel on both sides.
It appears that the appointment of the first respondent was annulled by the proceedings dated December 1, 1995 in R.C. NO.727/93. Consequently, Shri Nagaraja, learned counsel for the first respondent states that his client has lost interest in this matter since a fresh cause of action has arisen. He is not contesting the matter in this case since it would be open to his client to take such action as is warranted under law.
It is not in dispute that the appellant was not a party to the impugned order dated June 15, 1993 made in O.A. No.2199/92 by the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal at Madras. Without being impleaded as a party, appointment of Thomas was annulled by the impugned order. The Tribunal, therefore, has committed grave error of law in upsetting his appointment when he was not made a party. The impugned order is set aside as regards the appellant.
The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

N Venkateswara Rao & Ors Etc vs S T A & Ors Etc

Court

Supreme Court Of India

JudgmentDate
21 November, 1996
Judges
  • K Ramaswamy
  • G T Nanavati Act Headnote

Don’t wait for legal issues to escalate

By continuing past this page, you agree to our  Terms of Service,  Cookie Policy,  Privacy Policy,  Refund Policy   and Content Policies. © 2023 - Uber9 Business Process Services Private Limited. All rights reserved.