Improper bench composition and denial of fair hearing vitiated attachment-confirmation proceedings, leading to remand for fresh adjudication.

An attachment-confirmation order passed by a single-member adjudicating authority without a Judicial Member was held unsustainable where a connected High Court judgment had already finalised that such serious questions of law and fact required a bench including a Judicial Member; the benefit of that ruling extended to similarly placed co-noticees on parity. The proceedings were also found vitiated because the appellants were denied reasonable time to reply, their request for adjournment was rejected, and the matter was decided in haste, contrary to natural justice. The appeals succeeded, the order was set aside, and the matters were remitted for fresh adjudication with time to file replies, while the attachment continued.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the impugned attachment-confirmation order could be sustained when the adjudicating authority proceeded without a Judicial Member and the appellants stood on the same footing as a co-noticee who had already obtained relief from the High Court; (ii) Whether the proceedings were vitiated by denial of reasonable opportunity and violation of natural justice.

Issue (i): Whether the impugned attachment-confirmation order could be sustained when the adjudicating authority proceeded without a Judicial Member and the appellants stood on the same footing as a co-noticee who had already obtained relief from the High Court.

Analysis: The challenge went to the composition of the adjudicating authority and the legality of the order passed by a single-member bench not comprising a Judicial Member. The decision also noted that the High Court's final judgment in the connected matter had held that, in a lis involving serious questions of law and fact, the matter should be heard by a bench including a Judicial Member and that the judgment had attained finality. As the appellants were parties to the same common complaint and stood in the same position, the benefit of that final judgment was held to extend to them on parity.

Conclusion: The impugned order could not be sustained and was liable to be set aside on parity.

Issue (ii): Whether the proceedings were vitiated by denial of reasonable opportunity and violation of natural justice.

Analysis: The appellants were given inadequate time to respond, their request for time to file a reply was rejected, and the matter was proceeded with in haste. The procedural course adopted before passing the order was held to be inconsistent with fair hearing requirements and contrary to the governing statutory scheme.

Conclusion: The proceedings were vitiated by violation of natural justice.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded, the impugned order was set aside, and the matters were remitted for fresh adjudication after granting the appellants time to file replies, while the attachment was directed to continue.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the legality of an adjudicatory order is undermined by an improper bench composition and denial of a fair opportunity, the order cannot be sustained and must be set aside, with the benefit of a final connected judgment applied to similarly placed parties on parity.

---