TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 445X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... authority in this regard. Therefore, do not see any reason to grant them the dispensation of the pre-deposit. They have not pleaded anything either on merits of the case or on hardship even when specifically asked by me. With regard to the judgments quoted by the counsel for the appellant on the principles of natural justice it goes without saying that these principles are the pillars of justice and there is no denying these judgements. However, the facts of the case has to be seen to come at a conclusion whether there is a denial of these principles or not. The discussions and findings in the previous paras show that the principles have been fully followed by the adjudicating authority. Interests of justice would be served if the ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rovided to them thereby violating the principles of natural justice. He relied on the following judgments: a. Virendra Kumar Yadav vs. UOI Ors. , Delhi High Court order dated 19.08.2009. b. Delhi High Court order dated 25.05.2009 in the case of Priya Shah vs. Enforcement Directorate, New Delhi . c. Supreme Court order dated 31.03.2003 in the case of Mehsana District Cooperative Milk P.U. Ltd. vs. Union of India . d. Delhi High Court order dated 03.04.1998 in the case of M/s. DCM Limited vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi Ors. e. Supreme Court order dated 07.01.2011 in the case of Automotive Tyre Manufacturers Association vs. The Designated Authority Ors. They did not plead any financial or undue hard ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ication proceedings in the absence of such persons after according the reasons for doing so. They relied on the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Kanwar Natwar Singh vs. Directorate of Enforcement Anr. dated 05.10.2010 Civil Appeal No. 8601 of 2010. Hence, they stated that there was no case for dispensation of the predeposit. 4. I have examined the case. The limited question before me right now is whether principles of natural justice was followed or not. As per the impugned order para 57 on 30.01.2006 Shri N. Jothi Kaandasamy Advocates admitted attended the hearing the advocates expressed desire to cross-examine the officers who recorded statements of Shri V. Bhaskaran the hearing was adjourned to 17.02.2006 for ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of hearing on 17.01.2008 and 18.01.2008 Shri Janakiraman I.O. (from ED) of the case was present for cross-examination. However, neither Shri K.V. Dhanapalan, Advocate of Shri V. Bhaskaran .was present to conduct cross-examination of officer. The proceedings were therefore adjourned to 29.01.2008 and if not concluded to be continued on 30th 31st January, 2008. On 31.01.2008, witnesses Shri P.V. Balasubramani and S. Janakiraman officers were present. As recorded at para 63 64 of the impugned order it states during the examination, the advocate insisted on production of search warrant and mahzar for search of the residence of Shri V. Bhaskaran on 21.09.1995. The hearing was then adjourned to 06th, 07th 08th February, 2008 .. on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
