- Case number
- CMA(TM) 7/2023
- Court
- Madras High Court
- Date of judgment
- Outcome
- Remanded
Headnote
Notice was given under section 9(1)(a) and the applicant was heard on it across three successive hearings, and the refusal then came under section 9(1)(b). The two sub-clauses are not overlapping provisions but have their own distinctive areas of operation, so an order under one where the applicant was heard only on the other is a gross violation of natural justice.
Disposition
Set aside. The matter remanded, the respondent to continue processing the application from the stage where it was left.
Headnote by BRB Legal, written from the judgment: a summary for reference, not legal advice. Read the judgment itself before relying on it.