(1996) 3 SCC 364 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 717] was not a case of total denial of opportunity unlike in the present case. In fact, as Viswanathan, J. rightly notes in S.K. Sharma [State Bank of Patiala v. S.K. Sharma, (1996) 3 SCC 364 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 717] , after noticing the classic case of Ridge v. Baldwin [Ridge v. Baldwin, 1964 AC 40 : (1963) 2 WLR 935 (HL)] , this Court expressly records that where there is a total violation of principles of natural justice, the violation would be of a fundamental nature. Therefore, S.K. Sharma [State Bank of Patiala v. S.K. Sharma, (1996) 3 SCC 364 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 717] did not deal with the violation of the first limb of audi alteram partem principles, a situation of non-service of notice. The judgment in fact explicitly records that “a distinction ought to be made between violation of the principle of natural justice, audi alteram partem, as such, and violation of a facet of the said principle. In other words, distinction between “no notice” “no hearing” and “no adequate hearing” or to put it in different words, “no opportunity” and “no adequate opportunity”, was highlighted. The judgment in S.K. Sharma [State Bank of Patiala v. S.K. Sharma, (1996) 3 SCC 364 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 717] is therefore inapplicable to the present matter which is a case of no notice whatsoever.
