<?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>2025 (3) TMI 1053 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767667</link>
    <description>Under the RBI Master Directions on Frauds, the requirement of audi alteram partem includes a personal hearing before an account is classified as fraud. The Delhi HC noted that fraud classification has serious civil consequences and that natural justice applies to this administrative action. Relying on Rajesh Agarwal and the earlier Telangana decision, the Court read a hearing into the process and held that the expression &quot;hearing&quot; is not limited to a written representation where the procedure requires more. The later clarification relied on by the appellant did not dilute that position, and the borrower was held entitled to a personal hearing before fraud classification.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 19 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 22 Mar 2025 08:34:44 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=808314" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (3) TMI 1053 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767667</link>
      <description>Under the RBI Master Directions on Frauds, the requirement of audi alteram partem includes a personal hearing before an account is classified as fraud. The Delhi HC noted that fraud classification has serious civil consequences and that natural justice applies to this administrative action. Relying on Rajesh Agarwal and the earlier Telangana decision, the Court read a hearing into the process and held that the expression &quot;hearing&quot; is not limited to a written representation where the procedure requires more. The later clarification relied on by the appellant did not dilute that position, and the borrower was held entitled to a personal hearing before fraud classification.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 19 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767667</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>