TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court grants appeal, orders expedited cross-examination & adjudication conclusion within two months.</h1> The Court allowed the application for condonation of delay in preferring the appeal, admitted the appeal, and directed the appellant to provide a ... Principles of natural justice - right of cross-examine the witness denied - HELD THAT:- The appellant authority waited till 1st August 2018 to prefer this appeal. By that time, cross-examination of the witness could have been completed. By now, the adjudicating authority could well have passed the adjudication order - More or less, it is settled law that if in a quasi-judicial proceeding, a witness is produced by a party, the other party necessarily has a right of cross-examination. If we choose to formally hear out the appeal on the pure legal point whether the respondent could insist on a right of crossexamination, in our opinion, the proceedings would be further delayed, unnecessarily. We treat the appeal as in the hearing list. The appellant is directed to immediately fix the date and time for cross-examination of their witness and to conclude the adjudication within two months from the date of communication of this order. Appeal disposed off. Issues involved:1. Condonation of delay in preferring the appeal.2. Right of the respondents to cross-examine the witness of the appellant.3. Timely conclusion of adjudication proceedings.Analysis:1. The judgment begins by addressing the issue of condonation of delay in preferring the appeal. The Court acknowledges that sufficient cause has been shown for the marginal delay, and therefore, the application for condonation of delay is allowed. The appeal is formally admitted after considering the reasons presented by the appellant for the delay in preferring the appeal.2. The judgment delves into the right of the respondents to cross-examine the witness of the appellant. It highlights that the order under appeal recognized the respondents' right to cross-examine the witness but did not provide a reasonable opportunity for the same. The Court emphasizes the settled law that in quasi-judicial proceedings, if a witness is produced by a party, the other party has a right of cross-examination. To expedite the proceedings, the Court directs the appellant to immediately fix the date and time for cross-examination of their witness and concludes that the adjudication should be completed within two months from the date of communication of this order.3. Lastly, the judgment addresses the issue of timely conclusion of adjudication proceedings. The Court expresses concerns about further delays if the appeal is heard on the legal point regarding the respondent's right to cross-examination. To avoid unnecessary delays, the Court, with the consent of the parties, treats the appeal as in the hearing list and directs the appellant to expedite the cross-examination process and conclude the adjudication within a specified timeframe. The appeal and the stay application are disposed of by this order, emphasizing the importance of timely resolution in quasi-judicial proceedings.In conclusion, the judgment focuses on ensuring procedural fairness by allowing cross-examination rights, while also emphasizing the need for timely conclusion of adjudication proceedings to prevent unnecessary delays in the legal process.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
