2019 (9) TMI 423

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 2.The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there are about 50 witnesses, who are required to be cross examined and though he has given a letter dated 24.03.2003 and 26.05.2003 to the respondents seeking permission to cross examine these witnesses, the respondent had neither granted permission nor rejected the same, but had passed the impugned order. Hence, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that an opportunity to cross examination should be granted to them. 3.The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent submitted that various opportunities to file their reply as well as the personal hearing was extended to the petitioners and inspite of the same, he has not availed these opportunities. Since the order wa....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....as considered but extension of time was restricted to 7.2.2003. As already sufficient time was granted the petitioner instead of filing reply, chose to send a letter dated 5.2.2003 requesting to grant fourth time extension for five more months even to file reply on the ground that some of the statements were obtained under duress. As the petitioner had been granted sufficient time to reply, no more extension was given and a personal hearing was fixed before taking up the adjudication. Accordingly, a communication was sent to the petitioner asking to appear for hearing before the respondent on 26.3.2002. The petitioner by their letter dated 24.3.3003 informed that the reply was under preparation. Since the relied upon documents were volumino....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... hearing intimation notice was issued without taking into consideration of the suit pending before the City Civil Court, Chennai in O.S.No.3361 of 2003 filed by Shri.K.Gopal and such notice amounts to Contempt of Court and hence their participation in the enquiry proceedings is not proper. This shows that the petitioner had not availed the opportunities allowed to defend the notice. As stated in the affidavit, had not given any tabulated statement of list of dates. The averment of the petitioner is totally and factually not in order. The petitioner were afforded adequate opportunity to defend themselves and have purposely failed to avail the same solely with an intension of dragging on the proceedings." 5.No reply statement has ....