https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=185265 The court held that the appellant was not entitled to legal representation before the Grievance Redressal Committee (GRC) of the bank as the absence of legal representation would not defeat the purpose of the hearing. The court found that the bank's refusal did not violate principles of natural justice, as the bank's classification process was straightforward and the GRC's role was limited to reviewing the appellant's representation against the bank's classification. The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the bank's decision and the single Judge's ruling, denying the request for a stay. en-us Thu, 28 Aug 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 05 Aug 2016 16:36:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=185265 The court held that the appellant was not entitled to legal representation before the Grievance Redressal Committee (GRC) of the bank as the absence of legal representation would not defeat the purpose of the hearing. The court found that the bank's refusal did not violate principles of natural justice, as the bank's classification process was straightforward and the GRC's role was limited to reviewing the appellant's representation against the bank's classification. The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the bank's decision and the single Judge's ruling, denying the request for a stay. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 28 Aug 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=185265