9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Jurisdiction of the court, Breach of principles of natural justice
Jurisdiction of the Court: The Respondent's counsel raised a preliminary objection regarding the jurisdiction of the court, arguing that no cause of action arose within the court's jurisdiction. The objection was raised during oral submissions, not in previous filings. The Petitioner's counsel countered by pointing out that the alleged adverse material and conspiracy mentioned in the show cause notice were connected to Bombay. The Petitioner's interactions, the alleged conspiracy, and the service of notices all took place in Bombay. The court held that at least part of the cause of action was in Bombay, giving it jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The objection to jurisdiction was overruled. Breach of Principles of Natural Justice: Regarding the merits of the case, the court found that the allegations in the show cause notice did not match the adverse findings in the impugned order. This discrepancy breached the principles of natural justice. Additionally, the Petitioner was not provided with the documents and material forming the basis of the show cause notice despite requests. The court cited a previous judgment emphasizing the importance of informing the party about adverse reports and providing an opportunity to respond. As the Petitioner was not given access to crucial documents and reports, the impugned order was deemed to be in breach of natural justice. Consequently, the court quashed and set aside the impugned order. In conclusion, the court allowed the petition, ruling in favor of the Petitioner and setting aside the impugned order. The court found that the objection to its jurisdiction lacked substance and that the impugned order was invalid due to breaches of natural justice. The decision was made in accordance with the principles of natural justice, ensuring a fair hearing for the Petitioner.
|
