Hardcastle Restaurants Pvt. Ltd. And ... vs Union Of India And 2 Ors on 1 October, 2019
The Privy Council
held that only those members of the bench present throughout the
proceedings and who formed a quorum should arrive at their
conclusion to write the judgment and pronounce and sign it. In the
case of Mushtaq Ali and Ors v. State2, the Allahabad High Court
took a review of the case law on the subject. The Allahabad High
Court held that if any of the members of the bench who has assisted
in making the judgment was absent at any hearing of the case, the
judgment would be invalid and the invalidity of the judgment will
not be curable by Section 350 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The need to remain present during the hearing was emphatically
stated by the Supreme court in the case of G. Nageshwara Rao v
1(1933) LVI ILR 599
2 (1964) All LJ 609
::: Uploaded on - 19/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/04/2020 09:09:00 :::
28 WP 3492.18 -e.doc
APSRTC 3. The Court held that the divided responsibility of hearing
and decision making destroys the concept of a judicial hearing. Such
a procedure defeats the object of personal hearing. Personal hearing
enables an authority to clear-up its doubts during the arguments, and
the party can persuade the authority by reasoned argument to accept
the viewpoint. The Court ruled that if one person hears and another
decides, then personal hearing becomes an empty formality. The
Division Bench of Delhi High Court in the case of M/s. Kwality
Restaurant and Ice-Cream Co. v/s. The Commissioner of VAT,
Trade and Tax Department and Ors.4 extended this principle to the
VAT tribunal.