<?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>2012 (9) TMI 1148 - TELECOM DISPUTES SETTLEMENT AND APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275231</link>
    <description>Orders imposing serious civil or financial consequences must comply with natural justice by affording a fair hearing and giving meaningful reasons. The tribunal noted that the second committee issued the impugned penalty orders without granting the petitioners an opportunity of hearing, despite an earlier presentation before the first committee, and that the orders largely repeated the show-cause notice without explaining the alleged licence violations. These procedural defects caused prejudice and rendered the penalty orders unsustainable, so they were quashed and the petitioners were given an opportunity of hearing.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 28 Sep 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 22 Sep 2021 15:20:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=535648" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (9) TMI 1148 - TELECOM DISPUTES SETTLEMENT AND APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275231</link>
      <description>Orders imposing serious civil or financial consequences must comply with natural justice by affording a fair hearing and giving meaningful reasons. The tribunal noted that the second committee issued the impugned penalty orders without granting the petitioners an opportunity of hearing, despite an earlier presentation before the first committee, and that the orders largely repeated the show-cause notice without explaining the alleged licence violations. These procedural defects caused prejudice and rendered the penalty orders unsustainable, so they were quashed and the petitioners were given an opportunity of hearing.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 28 Sep 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275231</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>