Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 23 (0.27 seconds)New India Assurance Company Ltd vs Nusli Neville Wadia And Another on 13 December, 2007
In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Nusli
Neville Wadia, this Court considered a case un
der the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthor
ised Occupants) Act, 1971 and held as follows:
M/S Patel Enginnering Ltd vs Union Of India & Anr on 11 May, 2012
Insofar as the
Page 23 of 25
HC-NIC Page 23 of 25 Created On Mon Aug 14 23:24:55 IST 2017
C/SCA/6189/2016 JUDGMENT
decision of the Bombay High Court in Patel
Engineering Limited v. Union of India (supra) on
which reliance has been placed on behalf of the
respondents, this court is of the view that the
same does not in any manner further the case of
the respondents, inasmuch as, in the facts of the
said case the several opportunities were granted
to the assessee to make submissions with regard
to the findings of the report of the expert
committee and the court upon considering the
overall facts of the case was satisfied that
refusal to permit cross examination of some of
the panel members was justified. In the light of
the above discussion, the petitioner has made out
a clear case of gross violation of the principles
of natural justice warranting interference by
this court in exercise of powers under Article
226 of the Constitution of India.
The Central Excise Act, 1944
Union Of India vs T. R. Varma on 18 September, 1957
Meenglas Tea Estate vs Its Workmen on 22 February, 1963
M/S. Kesoram Cotton Mills Ltd vs Gangadhar And Others on 3 April, 1963
(7) In the opinion of this court, the above
decision would be squarely applicable to the
facts of the present case inasmuch as the two
pronged attack against the impugned Orderin
Original is based upon the breach of principles
of natural justice, firstly on the ground of non
grant of opportunity to cross examine the
signatory of the CRCL report, and secondly on the
ground of nongrant of any opportunity of
personal hearing to deal with the contents of the
CRCL report. In the facts of the present case,
while it is true that the central issue involved
in the case before the adjudicating authority
relates to a classification dispute, however, it
is equally true that none of the questions raised
before this court relate to classification of the
Page 19 of 25
HC-NIC Page 19 of 25 Created On Mon Aug 14 23:24:55 IST 2017
C/SCA/6189/2016 JUDGMENT
subject goods. The questions before this court
relate only to the breach of principles of
natural justice and hence, the availability of an
alternative statutory remedy will not act as a
bar in exercising writ jurisdiction under Article
226 of the Constitution of India.
Rachpal Singh & Etc vs Gurmit Kumar & Etc on 8 May, 2009
Biecco Lawrie Ltd. & Anr vs State Of West Bengal & Anr on 28 July, 2009
Kellogg India Private Limited. And ... vs Union Of India (Uoi), Asst. Commission, ... on 13 October, 2005
(4) Mr. Devan Parikh, Senior Advocate, learned
counsel with Mr. S.N. Thakkar, learned advocate
for the petitioner, submitted that the
adjudicating authority had obtained the report of
the Director (Revenue Laboratories), CRCL, dated
30.12.2015, after the personal hearing was over
and that a copy of such report was supplied to
the petitioner under letter dated 25.01.2016,
Page 3 of 25
HC-NIC Page 3 of 25 Created On Mon Aug 14 23:24:55 IST 2017
C/SCA/6189/2016 JUDGMENT
pursuant to which the petitioner had immediately
addressed a letter dated 10.02.2016 to the
adjudicating authority and in addition to
disputing the contents of the report, had
requested for crossexamination of the concerned
chemical analyzer and had also requested the
authorities to visit the factory of the
petitioner to verify the manufacturing process
and to grant a further opportunity of personal
hearing. It was submitted that without responding
to such request, the adjudicating authority
passed the final order of adjudication,
confirming the huge demand of excise duties with
interest and penalties. It was argued that
insofar as the adjudicating authority has not
granted an opportunity to crossexamine the
chemical analyzer and has not granted any
opportunity of personal hearing to deal with the
report of the chemical analyzer, the impugned
order is violative of the principles of natural
justice, warranting interference by this court in
exercise of powers under article 226 of the
Constitution of India. To bolster his contention,
the learned counsel placed reliance upon the
decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of
Kellogg India Private Limited & Anr. v. Union of
India & Ors., 2005 SCC Online Bom 1221, wherein
the court has held that the opportunity to cross
examine involves not only notice of the adverse
Page 4 of 25
HC-NIC Page 4 of 25 Created On Mon Aug 14 23:24:55 IST 2017
C/SCA/6189/2016 JUDGMENT
material but also a sufficient interval of time
to prepare for crossexamination. The notice of
the adverse material and opportunity of cross
examination is necessary because wherever the
opponent has declined to avail himself of the
offered opportunity, it must be supposed to have
been because he believed that testimony could not
or need not be disputed at all or be shaken by
crossexamination. The court held that in this
view of the matter, right to crossexamine or to
have opportunity to effectively exercise that
right is an essential part of principles of
natural justice.