9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 725X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ances, we find that in case the respondent no.4 felt it expedient to proceed to adjudicate the demand raised by the respondents by rejecting the request of the petitioner to keep the matter in abeyance, it would be appropriate and in the interest of justice to give an opportunity to the petitioner of being heard before proceeding to pass the final order. It is not the contention of the respondents that the petitioner have been deliberately delaying the adjudication of the alleged claim put forward by the respondents. Matter restored before the adjudicating authority subject to payment of costs of ₹ 15,000/- - WRIT PETITION NO. 233 OF 2016 - - - Dated:- 13-6-2016 - F. M. REIS NUTAN D. SARDESSAI, JJ. For the Appellant: Mr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e. The learned counsel further pointed out that the respondent no.4 while refusing such request also did not grant any adjournment but proceeded to adjudicate the matter and pass the impugned order. The learned counsel further pointed out that even in terms of the Rules, the petitioner otherwise was entitled for three adjournments and according to him, in the present case on the first date of hearing itself when the matter was posted for final hearing, the respondent no.4 without giving any adequate opportunity to the petitioner of a personal hearing proceeded to pass the impugned order. The learned counsel further pointed out that even on merits the petitioner have a strong ground to oppose the demand as according to him the petitioner had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion deserves to be rejected. The learned counsel further submits that the petitioner have forfeited their right of personal hearing as they have failed to remain present at the time of the final hearing nor sought an adjournment but however, only filed a misconceived application to keep the proceedings in abeyance. The learned counsel thereafter has taken us through the impugned order as well as the application filed by the petitioner to point out that there is no specific request made by the petitioner to adjourn the hearing fixed on the relevant dates. The learned counsel as such submits that the petition be rejected. The learned counsel further pointed out that the respondents are entitled to raise the demand and all the contentions rais ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re proceeding to pass the final order. It is not the contention of the respondents that the petitioner have been deliberately delaying the adjudication of the alleged claim put forward by the respondents. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and taking note of the fact that the application filed by the petitioner on 13.09.2015 can be construed to be an application for deferring the hearing fixed on 21.09.2015, we find that the impugned order passed by the respondent no.4 stands vitiated for violation of the principles of natural justice. Needless to say that it was expected of the petitioner to remain present on the relevant dates of hearing and not to take a casual approach by tendering the application on the assumption that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
