Natural justice requires that before a law can become operative it must be promulgated or published. It must be broadcast in some recognizable way so that all men may know what it is, or , at the very least, there must be some special rule or regulation or customary channel by or through which such knowledge can be acquired with the exercise of due and reasonable diligence [ M/s. Pankaj Jani Agencies vs. Union of India. AIR 1995 SC 360]

Non-reasoned award is not violative of natural justice. [ AIR 1995 SC 947]

Post-decisional hearing is sufficient in urgent matters [ AIR 1995 SC 1512]

When a stature confers drastic powers, it should be advised as a manner prescribed by the Statute. Natural justice is a foot hold against arbitrariness and therefore, unless the laws expressly or by necessary implication excluded to application of natural justice, the court will insist on its application [ (1994) 5 SCC 328]

When a statute prescribes the manner in which power has to be exercised, the power must be exercised in that manner alone. Exercise of power in utter violation of mandatory procedure laid down in rules framed under the Act, held, cannot be regarded as an "act" done in personal or execution or intended execution of the Act". [J. N.Ganatra vs. Morvi. AIR 1996 SC 2520= (1996) 9 SCC 495]

When principles of natural justice require an opportunity to be heard before adverse order is passed on any appeal or application, it does not in all circumstances mean a personal hearing. But any order passed after taking into consideration the points raised in the appeal or the application shall not be held to be invalid merely on the ground that no personal hearing had been afforded [Union of India vs. M/s. Jesus Sales Corporation - JT 1996(3) SC 59 = AIR 1996 SC 1509]

Giving of reasons is an essential element of administration of justice. [ AIR 1990 SC 2205 ]

Natural Justice. Not embodied in statutory rules framed under Act [ AIR 1990 SC 1984].

Only the body or officer in whom it has been conferred, unless sub-delegation of the power is authorised by express words necessary implication must exercise a statutory power.[ Dy.Gen.E.S.I. vs. T.Abdul Aziz JT 1996(6) SC 502]

Administrative instructions not in conformity with Statutory rules is ultravires [P.Sadagopalan vs. F.C.I. (1997) 4 SCC 301 = AIR 1997 SC 2700

Where an item had not been included in the agenda of the meeting nor deliberation and decision them borne out by the meeting a bald claim that it has been considered and decided cannot be accepted. [ (1991)1 SCC 401 ]Principal of promissory estoppel would stop corporation from backing your of its obligation to provide finance. [Gujrarat Financial Corporation vs Lotus Hotel. AIR 1983 SC 848]

Executive orders cannot be retrospective operation [ JT 1993(6) SC 233 ]

Subordinate legislation cannot modify a statute [ 1994(1) SCC 359]

Making of subordinate legislation is not sufficient to give validity to it. Publication is necessary for bringing it into force or giving validity. (under M.V.Act) [ 1982 KLT 166-FB]Memo is an administrative instructions and cannot have an overriding effect on the scheme under the M.V.Act. [ C.Kasturi and others vs.R.T.A. - JT 1996(3) SC 458 ]

Exercise of power by subordinate judiciary or tribunals created under ordinary legislations cannot be to the exclusions of High Court and Supreme Court. [L.Chandrakumar vs. Union of India. AIR 1997 SC 1125]

Even a right decision by a wrong forum is no decision. It is not existent in the eye of law and hence a nullity. [ AIR 1987 SC 535]

When a statutory authority makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Orders are not like old wine becoming better as they grow older. [Mohinder Gill vs Chief Election Commissioner. AIR 1978 SC 851, AIR 1998 Cal 153 ]

If a statutory authority has been vested with jurisdiction , he has to exercise it according to its own decision. He cannot act on higher authorities instructions . [ Jadega vs State of Gujarat. 1995(2) KLT SN.62.P.646.A.H.Ahamadi (CJ), B.L.Hansaria (J) & S.C.Sen (J) ]