Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2012 (10) TMI 333

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ple of natural justice and fair trial. - matter restored before High Court. - 2184 of 2011 - - - Dated:- 5-12-2011 - H.L. Dattu and Chandramauli Kr. Prasad, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, Advocate, for the Appellant. S/Shri P.P. Malhotra, ASG, Ms. Sadhana Sandhu, for Mrs. Anil Katiyar and Dhruv Tamta for Ms. Binu Tamta, Advocates, for the Respondent. [Order per : H.L. Dattu, J.]. - Leave granted. 1. The present appeal, by way of special leave, is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 1-9-2010 of the High Court of Delhi in Criminal Revision No. 555 of 2003 whereby the High Court has dismissed the revision petition preferred by the appellant against the Judgment and Order dated 22-3-2003 passed by Learne .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... by Ms. Manju Goel, Additional Sessions Judge. Being aggrieved by the Judgment and Order, the appellant preferred a revision petition before the High Court. The same was dismissed vide impugned final Judgment and Order dated 1-9-2010 passed by learned Judge, Shri Justice S.N. Dhingra. 4. It is apparent that the fact of earlier recusal of the case at the trial by learned Shri Justice S.N. Dhingra himself, was not brought to his notice in the revision petition before the High Court by either of the parties to the case. Therefore, Shri Justice S.N. Dhingra, owing to inadvertence regarding his earlier recusal, has dismissed the revision petition by the impugned Judgment. In our opinion, the impugned Judgment, passed by Shri Justice S.N. Dhing .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ..At every stage of his participation in the deliberations of the Selection Board there was a conflict between his interest and duty. Under those circumstances it is difficult to believe that he could have been impartial. The real question is not whether he was biased. It is difficult to prove the state of mind of a person. Therefore what we have to see is whether there is reasonable ground for believing that he was likely to have been biased. . In deciding the question of bias we have to take into consideration human probabilities and ordinary course of human conduct. 7. In the case of S. Parthasarthi v. State of A.P., (1974) 3 SCC 459, this Court has applied the real likelihood test and restored the decree of the trial court which in .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... prove the mind of a person. What has to be seen is whether there is a reasonable ground for believing that he was likely to have been biased. In deciding the question of bias, human probabilities and ordinary course of human conduct have to be taken into consideration. 9. In the case of Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India, (1987) 4 SCC 611, this Court has held : 15. ... The test of real likelihood of bias is whether a reasonable person, in possession of relevant information, would have thought that bias was likely and whether Respondent 4 was likely to be disposed to decide the matter only in a particular way. 16. It is the essence of a judgment that it is made after due observance of the judicial process; that the court or tribunal pa .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... See the observations of Mustill and Boyd, Commercial Arbitration, 1982 Edn., p. 214. Halsbury s Laws of England, 4th Edn., Vol. 2, para 551, p.82 describe that the test for bias is whether a reasonable intelligent man, fully apprised of all the circumstances, would feel a serious apprehension of bias. (emphasis supplied) 11. In the case of R. v. Camborne JJ, ex p Pearce, (1955) 1 QB 41, the Divisional Court of the Queen s Bench Division, after reviewing a large number of authorities including R. v. Sussex JJ, ex p McCarthy (supra) held : In the judgment of this Court the right test is that prescribed by Blackburn, J., namely, that to disqualify a person from acting in a judicial or quasi-judicial capacity upon the ground of interest .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates