#right to be heard

The Bombay High Court has ruled that litigants cannot be penalized with no-cross orders or closure of evidence due to their advocate’s absence, provided the non-appearance was not willful. This reinforces the right to be heard and prevents procedural injustice against clients who acted in good faith, setting a vital precedent for fair trial standards in civil litigation.

Bombay High Court sets aside a trial court order summoning a prosecution witness under CrPC Section 311 without hearing the accused, ruling that natural justice demands prior opportunity of hearing. The judgment reinforces that even at the summoning stage, ex-parte orders violate fair trial principles and are liable to be quashed.

Jharkhand High Court ruled that dismissing a writ petition solely due to counsel's absence without affording the petitioner an opportunity to be heard violates principles of natural justice. The Court emphasized factual distinctions must be considered before applying precedent, ensuring procedural fairness in judicial proceedings.

The Karnataka High Court has held that denying a party the chance to complete evidence during trial violates the core of natural justice - not just the formal right to be heard. This breach mandates remand with a strict 180-day deadline for fresh proceedings, reinforcing that procedural fairness in civil trials is non-negotiable and affects all litigants in property and asset disputes.

The Kerala High Court set aside an ITAT order because the tribunal failed to serve a hearing notice after the appellant did not provide an email ID, despite a defect memo. This establishes that procedural fairness requires active effort to serve notice-even when technical failures occur-and mandates fresh hearings when notice is not reasonably delivered, affecting all income tax appellants relying on digital communication.

Karnataka High Court quashed an ex-parte income tax assessment order under Section 148 IT Act, ruling that written submissions by the assessee constitute participation and mandate a final opportunity to file returns before final adjudication. The judgment reinforces that natural justice principles apply even in faceless assessment proceedings, protecting taxpayers from procedural unfairness.

Bombay High Court holds that closure of evidence due to procedural delay violates natural justice; courts must balance procedure with substantive fairness.