9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (10) TMI 165X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2-3-1984 and the consequential letters issued by the respondents. 2.M/s. Jain Shudh Vanaspati Company Limited imported certain amount of Beef Tallow. A show cause notice dated 4-11-1983 was issued to the said company. The operative portion of the show cause notice is contained in paragraph 3, which is to the following effect :- Therefore, in exercise of the powers vested in me, under Clause 8(g) of the Imports (Control) Order, 1955, as amended, I hereby direct you in terms of Clause 10 of the said Order to show cause by 30th November, 1983, why action should not be taken against you/your directors under Clause 8(l)(g) for having committed breach of Clause 3(i) of the Imports (Control) Order, 1955, as amended and why you and your direct ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rking of the petitioner companies has been prejudiced to a very great extent. 5. These petitions have to succeed on the short ground that principles of natural justice have been violated. Admittedly neither any show cause notice has been issued nor any hearing has been provided to either of the three petitioner companies or its directors for invoking the provisions of Clause 6. The contention of the learned Counsel for the respondent is that the statute does not provide for any such notice or hearing and wherever the Legislature has intended any hearing it has said so in the statute itself. It was pointed out that the Legislature thought it fit to comply with the rules of natural justice while passing an order under Clause 8 of the Order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... It noticed that Clause 8B did not specifically provide for an opportunity of personal hearing but while interpreting the clause the Supreme Court held that the consequences were rather serious and in this situation it was necessary to provide for a pre-decisional hearing and in any case at least a post-decisional hearing. 6. Mr. Wazir Singh, the learned Counsel for the respondents contended that it was open to the petitioners to make a representation to the respondents and if such a representation was made, the respondents would have granted hearing which would have been in the nature of a post decisional hearing. This argument has also been advanced overlooking the fact that a detailed representation was made by the petitioners in C.W.P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ially benefited from the offence committed by the accused party, namely, M/s. Jain Shudh Vanaspati Company Limited and as to whether a director or a partner is a major accused and has a controlling interest in the affairs of the associated company. These findings cannot possibly be recorded without hearing the party to which the provision of Clause 6 are being made applicable. There is no finding recorded by the respondents to the effect that the petitioner companies have benefited at all from the offence committed by M/s. Jain Shudh Vanaspati Company Limited. The finding regarding the substantial controlling interest is also missing. It was not disputed during the course of hearing that the petitioner companies are engaged in entirely diff ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
