https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197758 The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, finding that the first respondent could not unilaterally assess damages for a disputed breach of contract. The court held that the first respondent's actions violated principles of natural justice and fair play, emphasizing the need for independent adjudication before imposing liabilities. The demands issued by the first respondent were deemed illegal and arbitrary, and the question of limitation was left open for future adjudication. en-us Thu, 23 Mar 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 15 Jan 2018 14:32:01 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197758 The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, finding that the first respondent could not unilaterally assess damages for a disputed breach of contract. The court held that the first respondent's actions violated principles of natural justice and fair play, emphasizing the need for independent adjudication before imposing liabilities. The demands issued by the first respondent were deemed illegal and arbitrary, and the question of limitation was left open for future adjudication. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 23 Mar 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197758