9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 92X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order – Petitioner further holds that the amount due towards the Respondent was not verified and permission for possession of assets of the Petitioner was not justified – Held That:- There was no dispute regarding the amount due as the same has not been paid and neither the notice issued earlier under Section 13(2) was challenged - Section 14 does not contemplate any notice to be given by the Dis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct ). 2. It appears that the impugned order dated 10.11.2009 passed by the respondent No.1 was initially challenged by the petitioners by filing the writ petition being No.740/2010, in which the Court had relegated the petitioners to file proceedings before the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the said Act. The said order was passed in view of the decision of the Apex Court in case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 3. It is sought to be submitted by the learned counsel Mr. Rajendra K. Salecha for the petitioners that the impugned order passed by the respondent No.1 is in violation of the prindiples of natural justice inasmuch as the petitioners were not given any opportunity of hearing before passing of the said order. He also submitted that the respondent No.1 had also not verified as to whether the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the notice given to them under Section 13 (2) of the said Act. Since the petitioners had neither challenged the said notice under Section 13 (2) nor had paid any amount since 2007, it is presumed that there was no dispute as regards the outstanding dues as shown by the respondent No.2 and that the petitioners were avoiding payment of the said dues. So far as the issue of opportunity of hearing is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
