<?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>1972 (12) TMI 85 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192688</link>
    <description>Administrative action under Section 18A of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 attracts the principles of natural justice because a take-over order has serious civil consequences, but the content of those principles is flexible and depends on the statutory scheme and circumstances. Where an undertaking has already been investigated under Section 15 and heard under Rule 5, the need for any further hearing or disclosure of the investigating report turns on the facts and on whether prejudice is shown. On the stated facts, repeated representations had been made and no prejudice from non-supply of the report was established, so the take-over order was not vitiated by denial of natural justice.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 08 Dec 1972 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 24 Jun 2025 11:09:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=472052" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1972 (12) TMI 85 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192688</link>
      <description>Administrative action under Section 18A of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 attracts the principles of natural justice because a take-over order has serious civil consequences, but the content of those principles is flexible and depends on the statutory scheme and circumstances. Where an undertaking has already been investigated under Section 15 and heard under Rule 5, the need for any further hearing or disclosure of the investigating report turns on the facts and on whether prejudice is shown. On the stated facts, repeated representations had been made and no prejudice from non-supply of the report was established, so the take-over order was not vitiated by denial of natural justice.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 08 Dec 1972 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192688</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>