https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=185262 In wilful defaulter proceedings before a bank's Grievance Redressal Committee, legal representation by an advocate is not available as of right and depends on the applicable framework and the facts. The protections applicable to a departmental enquiry against an employee do not automatically extend to a borrower in this setting. As the company showed no failure of justice or prejudice, and could answer the factual issues through its officers or personnel, refusal of advocate representation caused no interference-worthy irregularity. The challenge to the denial of legal representation therefore failed, and the Committee proceedings were permitted to continue according to law. en-us Thu, 10 Jul 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 05 Aug 2016 16:36:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=185262 In wilful defaulter proceedings before a bank's Grievance Redressal Committee, legal representation by an advocate is not available as of right and depends on the applicable framework and the facts. The protections applicable to a departmental enquiry against an employee do not automatically extend to a borrower in this setting. As the company showed no failure of justice or prejudice, and could answer the factual issues through its officers or personnel, refusal of advocate representation caused no interference-worthy irregularity. The challenge to the denial of legal representation therefore failed, and the Committee proceedings were permitted to continue according to law. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 10 Jul 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=185262