<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1988 (4) TMI 352 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102044</link>
    <description>Where refusal of renewal of permission under FERA affected ongoing business activity and civil consequences, the Court held that audi alteram partem was not excluded by mere statutory silence. Principles of natural justice applied even to a foreign entity, and repeated past renewals created a legitimate expectation that renewal would not be refused without an opportunity of representation. In the absence of any special urgency or administrative necessity, the refusal could not stand without a prior hearing and a reasoned decision. The impugned refusal was set aside and the matter was remitted for reconsideration after hearing the applicant and passing a speaking order.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 22 Apr 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 13 Feb 2012 15:28:03 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=139093" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1988 (4) TMI 352 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102044</link>
      <description>Where refusal of renewal of permission under FERA affected ongoing business activity and civil consequences, the Court held that audi alteram partem was not excluded by mere statutory silence. Principles of natural justice applied even to a foreign entity, and repeated past renewals created a legitimate expectation that renewal would not be refused without an opportunity of representation. In the absence of any special urgency or administrative necessity, the refusal could not stand without a prior hearing and a reasoned decision. The impugned refusal was set aside and the matter was remitted for reconsideration after hearing the applicant and passing a speaking order.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 22 Apr 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102044</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>