9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Lack of opportunity to be heard before passing the order by Tribunal.
Analysis: The High Court heard the arguments of the parties and reviewed the record, noting that the appellant was not given a chance to present their case before the Tribunal's order was issued. The Tribunal justified its decision by stating that since the appellant did not appear despite a notice, the appeal was decided ex parte. The appellant's counsel acknowledged the Tribunal's authority to proceed in the absence of the appellant but contended that due to unique circumstances, such as the impact of riots on the appellant-company's promoters and the company's reconstruction scheme, the matter should be sent back to the Tribunal for a fresh hearing. The Tribunal had sent a notice to the appellant via registered post, but the appellant did not attend the hearing. The appellant claimed that the company's office was closed, resulting in the notice not being received by anyone responsible for responding. Additionally, no notice was sent to the appellant's second address, as per Mr. Jain. Despite these facts, the High Court emphasized that the order under appeal was issued without granting the appellant an opportunity to be heard. To uphold the principles of justice, the High Court allowed the appeal, overturned the Tribunal's order, and remitted the matter back to the Tribunal for the appellant to present their case before a fresh decision is made. To expedite the process and avoid complications due to non-service of a new notice, the appellant was directed to appear before the Tribunal on a specified date. No costs were awarded in this judgment.
|
