9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: The judgment addresses the lack of reasons provided by the Tribunal for accepting alternate submissions over substantive contentions, leading to a breach of natural justice principles.
Judgment Summary: Issue 1 - Lack of Reasons for Accepting Alternate Submissions: The High Court of BOMBAY heard multiple appeals involving common questions based on an identical order of the Tribunal. The Tribunal accepted peak credit based on alternate submissions without providing adequate reasons or discussing the substantive contentions raised by the appellants. The Court emphasized that a reasoned decision is essential for justice and a safeguard against arbitrariness. It noted that the Tribunal failed to appreciate the substantive contentions, leading to a breach of natural justice principles. Issue 2 - Reliance on Unconnected Facts: The Tribunal's reliance on facts from unrelated cases within the same group was deemed unjustified by the Court. It highlighted an instance where the Tribunal based its decision on facts from a different case without proper justification or notice to the appellant. The Court found such reliance on unconnected facts to be inappropriate and lacking in legal basis. Issue 3 - Breach of Natural Justice Principles: The Court concluded that the impugned orders lacked reasons and were in breach of natural justice principles. It set aside the Tribunal's orders to the extent they dealt with unproved loans, remitting all matters back to the Tribunal for a fresh hearing. The Court directed the Tribunal to address the limited issue pertaining to the lack of reasons in accordance with the law and principles of natural justice. In conclusion, the High Court of BOMBAY disposed of all appeals, setting aside the impugned orders due to the lack of reasons provided by the Tribunal. The Court emphasized the importance of providing reasoned decisions to ensure justice and directed a fresh hearing on the specific issue identified.
|
