Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the representation made pursuant to the Tribunal's earlier order could be expanded beyond the subject matter of the appeal and whether the appellant could still insist on consideration of alleged violations outside that scope.
Analysis: The earlier order permitting a fresh representation confined it to the grievances raised in the appeal. The modification application had already been rejected on the footing that enlarging the representation beyond the memo of appeal would impermissibly widen the scope of the proceedings. The later affidavit, filed after disposal of the appeal and the modification application, could not be treated as part of the appeal record. The grievance relating to penalty on key managerial personnel had also been rendered academic because parallel proceedings had already resulted in penalties against them.
Conclusion: The appellant could not seek consideration of issues beyond the appeal scope, and the challenge to the rejection of the representation failed.
Ratio Decidendi: A representation filed pursuant to a limited judicial direction cannot be used to enlarge the scope of the original appeal, and material introduced after the appeal has been disposed of cannot be treated as part of that appeal.