https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311437 HC set aside Railway's termination letter dated 31st March 2021 for breach of contractual terms. Court found Railways failed to provide mandatory one-month notice under Clause 23.2 before termination and denied petitioner fair hearing rights. Termination was deemed arbitrary, issued only after petitioner served 60-day notice to terminate contract and seek security deposit refund. Court ruled blacklisting action was highhanded and violated contractual terms, emphasizing fair play principles require opportunity for representation before adverse action. Railways' actions constituted breach of agreement provisions and petitioner's procedural rights. Application was allowed with termination letter revoked. en-us Wed, 06 Apr 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 26 Dec 2023 06:11:44 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311437 HC set aside Railway's termination letter dated 31st March 2021 for breach of contractual terms. Court found Railways failed to provide mandatory one-month notice under Clause 23.2 before termination and denied petitioner fair hearing rights. Termination was deemed arbitrary, issued only after petitioner served 60-day notice to terminate contract and seek security deposit refund. Court ruled blacklisting action was highhanded and violated contractual terms, emphasizing fair play principles require opportunity for representation before adverse action. Railways' actions constituted breach of agreement provisions and petitioner's procedural rights. Application was allowed with termination letter revoked. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 06 Apr 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311437