9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 182X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d to the opposite parties to cross examination the witnesses. Reliance can be placed in the case of G. BALAJI, VENKATESWARA RAO VERSUS SARAVANASAMY [ 2020 (7) TMI 810 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] where it was held that the plaintiff in the instant case, who could not appear before the court on the ground that his employer refused to grant leave for months and in fact years together, is not entitled to any equitable treatment and his evidence cannot retained for considering its probative value. Even though it is countered by the respondent/Plaintiff that extensive cross examination has been done, it is relevant to note that the learned judge has not chosen to consider or accept the same and has not observed as such. If it is true that extensi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submitted that the said penalty was imposed by the Adjudicating authority without following the principle of natural justice against which they preferred the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) that yielded no fruitful result. She has drawn attention of this Bench to the various statements of the witnesses including that of the partner Mr. Mohan S. Poojari who stated that somebody was misusing their CHA licence but that statement was not accepted by the Adjudicating Authority or Commissioner (Appeals). On the other hand, they were denied of the opportunity of cross examination of some of the officials and witnesses, basing on whose statement penalty was imposed and confirmed by the Authorities below. She placed her reliance in the j ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... request for an opportunity of cross-examination of certain officers and witnesses who were concerned with the said case and whose evidence would be relevant i.e. who had granted Let Export Order on the basis of various documents. However, in spite of these specific and repeated requests, no opportunity of cross-examination has been granted. No reasons as to why cross-examination cannot be granted are also communicated or mentioned in the impugned Order. He had clearly mentioned about none supply of copies of relevant documents and not granting opportunity of cross examination of the witnesses by the Appellants. Though some reasons like electronic filing and availability of shipping bills were shown to have been made available to the Ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... R (1930) Lahore 1 and the Bombay High Court in Martand Pandharinath Chaudhari v. Radhabai Krishnarao Deshmukh AIR (1931) Bombay 97. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Gulla Kharagjit Carpenter v. Narsingh Nandkishore Rawat also followed the Privy Council decision in Sardar Gurbakhsh Singh's case (supra). The Allahabad High Court in Arjun Singh v. Virender Nath and Anr. held that if a party abstains from entering the witness box, it would give rise to an inference adverse against him. Similarly, a Division Bench of the Punjab Haryana High Court in Bhagwan Dass v. Bhishan Chand and Ors. , drew a presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence Act against a party who did not enter into the witness box. 6. In view of the judicial precede ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
