9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (6) TMI 486X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble High Court of Gujarat in SCA No.798/2014. Their Lordships in their oral judgment dt.06.03.2014 directed the Tribunal to reconsider the issue on merit subject to the condition that the main appellant pays cost of Rs.50,000/- to the Gujarat State Legal Authorities. We find that the appellant-applicant has complied with the condition of Hon'ble High Court. This matter was listed on 21.04.2014 before the Bench, on which date, advocate Shri Kuntal Parikh submitted that his senior advocate Shri P.M. Dave is held up in High Court and sought a short adjournment. We accommodated the adjournment sought and directed the ld.Counsel to appear before us on 24.04.2014. Today, the ld. Counsel Shri P.M. Dave appeared and argued the matter. 2. It is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot been considered by the adjudicating authority and the relied upon documents needed be appreciated in reference to Motor Vehicle Act and the cross-examination having been denied has deprived the appellant from bringing on record the correctness of relied upon documents. 3. Ld. Departmental Representative, on the other hand, would submit that on an identical issue, this Bench has specifically taken a view that the issue needs deeper consideration and the appellant should be directed to deposit some amount for hearing and disposing the appeal. On the question of cross-examination, he would submit that there is no relevance brought on record by the appellant for granting of the cross-examination. 4. On consideration of the submissions made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... New Chandra Motor Cycle House. > Shri Mansukh Patel, Proprietor, M/s Dattatrey Auto Centre, Rajkot > Shri Kasambhai Umarbhai Kaida, Proprietor, Kamal Auto Centre, Rajkot. 5. It can be seen from the above reproduced paragraph that the appellant had specifically stated that the demand raised are on the entries being of third party, cannot be applied directly to the appellants case. We find that the appellant has specifically stated that they want cross-examination of the persons as indicated hereinabove. In our view, the adjudicating authority has not dealt with the question of granting of cross-examination in accordance with the law, in as much as the adjudicating authority has in a passing remark in Para 15.13 has stated that the cross- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from requiring the petitioners to show relevance for seeking cross-examination of the witnesses. 6. In our considered view, the claim of the appellant in the facts and circumstances of this case, seems to be justified that there is a violation of principles of natural justice by not granting the cross-examination of the persons as is indicated by them in interim reply. 7. We agree that there is a violation of principles of natural justice due to there being no findings on either granting or rejection of the plea for cross-examination of the persons. 8. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, keeping all the issues open, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the adjudicating authorit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
