Natural Justice recognizes three principles: (i) Nemo debet essc judex in propria causa. (ii) Audi alterem partem, and (iii) Speaking orders or reasoned decisions. Nemo debet essc judex in propria causa-The first principle of impartiality roughly translated into English means nobody shall be a judge in his own cause or in a cause in which he is interested. This principle is more popularly known as the Doctrine of Bias. That is the authority sitting in judgment should be impartial and act without bias. To instill confidence in the system, justice should not merely be done but seen to be done Audi alterem partem - The second principle of natural justice literally means ―to hear the other side‖. This is necessary for providing a fair hearing and no doubt the rule against bias would also be a part of the procedure. A corollary has been deduced from the above two rules and particularly the audi alteram partem rule, namely ‗qui aliquid statuerit parte inaudita alteram actquam licet dixerit, haud acquum facerit‘ that is, ‗he who shall decide anything without the other side having been heard, although he may have said what is right, will not have been what is right‘ or in other words, as it is now expressed, ‗justice should not only be done but should manifestly be seen to be done‘. Issuance of Speaking Orders or Reasoned Decision - The third aspect of natural justice requires speaking orders or reasoned decisions. It is now universally recognized that giving reasons for a certain decision is one of the fundamentals of good administration and a safeguard against arbitrariness. The refusal to give reasons may excite the suspicion that there are probably no good reasons to support the decision. Hence reasons are useful as they may reveal an error of law, the grounds for an appeal or simply remove what might otherwise be a lingering sense of injustice on the part of the unsuccessful party.
If the ratio of time periods of investment of A and B is 5:6, profit at the end of the year is Rs.100000 and A’s share in it is Rs.25000, then what is...
Pawan and Qureshi initiated a business with investments of Rs. 20,800 and Rs. 16,000, respectively. After 't' months, Rinku joined them with an investme...
‘A’ and ‘B’ invested Rs. 4800 and Rs. 3200, respectively in a business, together. After 6 months, ‘A’ withdrew 25% of his initial investment...
Veena and Sanu started a business with initial investments of Rs. 6400 and Rs. 8000, respectively. The time periods for which they kept their investment...
P and Q together started a business with initial investment in the ratio of 1:7, respectively. The time-period of investment for P and Q is in the ratio...
‘A’ launched a business with an initial investment of Rs. 12,000. After ‘M’ months, ‘B’ became a partner by contributing Rs. 20,000. By the ...
A, B and C started a partnership with investment of Rs. X - 1200, Rs. X and Rs. X + 1800. If profit of B is invested in a scheme at the rate of 18% for...
‘A’ started a business with the investment of Rs. 19000. After ‘x’ months and after 6 months from starting ‘B’ and ‘C’, respectively, jo...
P and Q started a business by investing Rs.9000 and Rs.7500 respectively. After 7 months, Q increased his investment by a certain percentage such that a...
Amy and Ben started a business partnership, with Amy investing Rs. x and Ben investing Rs. (x + 6000). After one year, Chris joined the partnership with...