9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (2) TMI 423X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a Singh, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : P.S. Bajaj, Member (J)]. Heard both sides. 2. The bare perusal of the impugned order shows that the adjudicating authority had violated the rules of natural justice as no proper opportunity was given to the appellants for defending their case. This fact was not even disputed by the learned S.D.R. Therefore, the appellants have a strong, pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... riage of the son and daughter of the Director of the Company at Bombay on 23-3-2001, and even enclosed along with the letter photocopy of the train reservation tickets taken by them, for Bombay, but the adjudicating authority closed the hearing and passed the impugned order. The impugned order, according to the learned Counsel, had been passed in violation of the rules of natural justice and as su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were asked to approach the Divisional Office for collecting the documents. The documents were finally delivered to them on 22-1-2001. Thereafter, personal hearing of the matter, was fixed and three dates for hearing were given. The last date of personal hearing fixed was 20-3-2001 and on that date the appellants requested for adjournment on account of the marriage of the son and daughter of the D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er taken into consideration for closing the matter on 20-3-2001 on which date the appellants had genuine difficulty in putting up appearance. 6. In the case of State Bank of India v. Chandra Govindji, (2000) 8 SCC 532, the Apex Court had observed as under - In ascertaining whether a party had reasonable opportunity to put forward his case or not, one should not ordinarily go beyond the date o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
