https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195123 De-panelment of an approved enforcement agent was treated as valid where the petitioner could not show any contractual or legal right to continue on the panel. The High Court noted that the petitioner's correspondence with the bank contained intemperate and inappropriate language, which was not denied, and held that removal from the panel was not unlawful merely because no prior notice or hearing was given in the absence of an enforceable entitlement. Authorities on blacklisting and arbitrary state action were distinguished because they did not apply to this de-panelment setting. en-us Tue, 29 May 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 16 Oct 2017 11:56:10 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195123 De-panelment of an approved enforcement agent was treated as valid where the petitioner could not show any contractual or legal right to continue on the panel. The High Court noted that the petitioner's correspondence with the bank contained intemperate and inappropriate language, which was not denied, and held that removal from the panel was not unlawful merely because no prior notice or hearing was given in the absence of an enforceable entitlement. Authorities on blacklisting and arbitrary state action were distinguished because they did not apply to this de-panelment setting. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 29 May 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195123