Legal Reference Library

High Court of Bombay Remio A. Rodrigues v. Goa Glass Fibre Ltd. MANU/MH/0819/2017 28.04.2017 Labour and Industrial Tribunal has power to recall witness on ground of mistake of an Advocate Challenge in present petition is to order, by which learned Presiding Officer of Industrial Tribunal dismissed Petitioner's application for recall of a witness for purpose of cross-examination. It is submitted that under Section 11(3) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Tribunal has power to recall a witness. Application for recall is required to be allowed in peculiar facts and circumstances of present case. Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court in case of Karam Chand Thapar and Brothers (Pvt.) Ltd., has held that, Sub-section (3) of Section 11 of said Act confers upon Tribunal same powers as are vested in a Civil Court under Civil Procedure Code in matter of enforcing the attendance of a person and examining him on oath. This power includes power to recall a witness. Blanket ...

Supreme Industries Ltd vs. ACIT (Bombay High Court) S. 254(2): ITAT must adopt a justice oriented approach and not defeat the legitimate rights on the altar of procedures and technicalities. Even a mistake by the assessee can be rectified (i) It is a settled position in law that every authority exercising quasi judicial powers has inherent/ incidental power in discharging of its functions to ensure that justice is done between parties i.e. no prejudice is caused to any of the parties. This power has not to be traced to any provision of the Act but inheres in every quasi judicial authority. This has been so held by the Supreme Court in Grindlays Bank Ltd. v/s. Central Government Industrial Tribunal 1980 SCC 420. Therefore, the aforesaid principle of law should have been adopted by the Tribunal. It is expected from the Tribunal to adopt a justice oriented approach and not defeat the legitimate rights on the altar of procedures and technicalities. This is particularly so when there ...

1) Hiralal Bhagwati v. Commissioner of Income Tax, (2000) 246 ITR 188 2) Suhrid Geigy Limited v. Commissioner of Surtax, Gujarat, (1999) 237 ITR 834 3) Delhi Stock Exchange Assn. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, (1997) 225 ITR 234 (SC) 4) Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Surat v. Surat City Gymikhana. Civil Appeal Nos. 4305-06 of 2002 5) Patel Narshi Thakershi & Ors. V. Pradyumansinghji Ariunsinghii. (1971) 3 SCC 844 6) T.S. Balaram v. Volkart Brothers, Bombay, (1971) 2 SCC 526 7) Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmad Ishaque, (1955) 1 SCR 1104 8) Batuk K. Vyas v. Surat Municipality, ILR 1953 Bom 191 : AIR 1953 Bom 133 9) Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde & Ors. v. Mallikariun Bhavanappa Tirumale, (1960) 1 SCR 890 10) Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan & Ors., (1964) 5 SCR 6 11) Kil Kotagiri Tea & Coffee Estates Co. Ltd. v. Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal & Ors., (1988) 174 ITR 579 (Ker) 12) Golak Nath v. Union o...