High Court Directive Upheld: No Expert Panel for Machinery Characteristics in Lift Installation

The Tribunal decided against constituting a panel of experts to determine machinery characteristics for lift installation, focusing on technical aspects instead. Compliance with the High Court's directive for de novo consideration led to scheduling a two-day hearing for thorough evaluation of evidence and submissions from both parties. The judgment underscores procedural clarity and adherence to higher court directives, emphasizing fair reconsideration without the need for an expert panel.

---

---

Issues:
1. Whether a panel of experts should be constituted to examine the essential characteristics of machinery for installation of a lift.
2. Compliance with the direction of the Hon'ble High Court regarding de novo consideration of the case.

Analysis:
1. The judgment revolves around the issue of whether a panel of experts should be appointed to determine the essential characteristics of machinery for lift installation. Initially, a previous Bench had ordered the constitution of a panel to assess the materials provided by the appellant. However, the Member (Technical) emphasized that the panel should focus on technical aspects, not on deciding the essential characteristics of the machinery as a lift. Following the recusal of the Member (Technical), the matter was transferred to a Bench presided by another Member for fresh consideration.

2. The judgment also addresses the compliance with the direction of the Hon'ble High Court for de novo consideration of the case. The Hon'ble High Court had remanded the matter back to the Tribunal for reconsideration and to pass an order according to law. In line with this direction, the Tribunal decided that setting up a panel was unnecessary and that the matter should be resolved after hearing both parties and evaluating the evidence on record. Consequently, the Tribunal disposed of the miscellaneous application and scheduled a two-day continuous hearing to allow elaborate submissions from the counsels representing both sides.

In conclusion, the judgment clarifies the procedural aspects regarding the constitution of a panel of experts for assessing machinery characteristics and emphasizes the importance of complying with the directives of the higher court for reconsideration of the case. The Tribunal's decision to hear the matter afresh without the need for a panel demonstrates a commitment to thorough examination and adherence to legal procedures.

---