https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458358 The Delhi HC rejected petitioners' challenge to BIFR proceedings on grounds of "hearing by one, decision by another." The court held that BIFR proceedings under SICA require judicial consideration of objections to draft schemes, implying a duty to hear parties. However, when bench composition changed during proceedings, the subsequent bench had benefit of earlier proceedings and applied its mind to the record. Since hearings had not reached final arguments stage but remained at pleadings exchange, no prejudice occurred. The court applied CPC principles by analogy, finding no breach of natural justice where the later bench continued proceedings and issued directions before final orders. Petitioners were not estopped from objecting as they had not waived rights or acquiesced. The preliminary objection was rejected and matters were listed for hearing on merits. en-us Thu, 24 Apr 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 23 Oct 2024 19:36:02 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458358 The Delhi HC rejected petitioners' challenge to BIFR proceedings on grounds of "hearing by one, decision by another." The court held that BIFR proceedings under SICA require judicial consideration of objections to draft schemes, implying a duty to hear parties. However, when bench composition changed during proceedings, the subsequent bench had benefit of earlier proceedings and applied its mind to the record. Since hearings had not reached final arguments stage but remained at pleadings exchange, no prejudice occurred. The court applied CPC principles by analogy, finding no breach of natural justice where the later bench continued proceedings and issued directions before final orders. Petitioners were not estopped from objecting as they had not waived rights or acquiesced. The preliminary objection was rejected and matters were listed for hearing on merits. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 24 Apr 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458358