{"id":210294,"date":"2019-02-19T15:00:39","date_gmt":"2019-02-19T09:30:39","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=210294"},"modified":"2019-02-19T12:01:56","modified_gmt":"2019-02-19T06:31:56","slug":"pak-sc-an-appellate-adjudicatory-authority-cannot-challenge-courts-order-in-purely-adversarial-proceeding","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/02\/19\/pak-sc-an-appellate-adjudicatory-authority-cannot-challenge-courts-order-in-purely-adversarial-proceeding\/","title":{"rendered":"Pak SC | An appellate adjudicatory authority; cannot challenge Court\u2019s order in purely adversarial proceeding"},"content":{"rendered":"

Supreme Court of Pakistan:<\/strong> The Division Bench of Mushir Alam and Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel, JJ. dismissed a petition filed by Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan (SECP) on the ground that being an appellate adjudicatory authority, it could not challenge the order passed High Court in purely adversarial proceeding by and between the policyholders and the insurance companies.<\/p>\n

In this case, the respondent raised a claim under marine cargo policy for consignment that was damaged by water; but the said claim as repudiated. Complaint filed before the Insurance Ombudsman was dismissed. On an appeal under Section 130(2) of the Insurance Ordinance, 2000, petitioner being appellate authority held that mal-administration on part of respondent was evident, and ordered it to pay the amount of loss assessed by surveyors. The respondent insurance company challenged this order before the Lahore High Court, which set aside petitioner\u2019s judgment. Thus, the instant petition.<\/p>\n

The Court noted that the office of Insurance Ombudsman is created under Section 125 of the Ordinance. Person aggrieved by order of the Insurance Ombudsman may file an appeal with SECP. Under the Insurance Ordinance, SECP is the final adjudicatory and appellate authority against the recommendatory order of the Insurance Ombudsman.<\/p>\n

It was opined that Insurance Ombudsman, is an investigatory and recommendatory authority; and SECP, being the final appellate authority against the order of Insurance Ombudsman performs the judicial function within the parameters laid down under the Ordinance.<\/p>\n

Insurance Ombudsman and SECP, after passing an order become functus officio, i.e., any order passed by the Insurance Ombudsman, which has not been appealed against, or any order passed by the SECP in appeal, becomes final and enforceable against the insurer, unless the complaint is dismissed or judicial review is invoked. Neither the Insurance Ombudsman nor the SECP is required to come forward to justify and\/or defend its order before the High Court or Supreme Court. Reliance in this regard was placed on Syed Yakoob v. K.S.Radhakrishnan<\/em>, AIR 1964 SC 477<\/a> where it was held that Tribunals are not supposed to defend its own orders unless allegations are made against them.<\/p>\n

In view thereof, the petition was dismissed for being without merit.[Securities & Exchange Commission of Pakistan v. East West Insurance Company, Civil Petition No. 1191 of 2017, Order dated 12-02-2018]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Supreme Court of Pakistan: The Division Bench of Mushir Alam and Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel, JJ. dismissed a petition filed by Securities <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":8808,"featured_media":66141,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,12],"tags":[33878,33879,33882,16871,33881,33880],"class_list":["post-210294","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-foreigncourts","tag-adversarial-proceeding","tag-appellate-adjudicatory-authority","tag-insurance-companies","tag-ombudsman","tag-policyholders","tag-securities-and-exchange-commission-of-pakistan"],"yoast_head":"\nPak SC | An appellate adjudicatory authority; cannot challenge Court\u2019s order in purely adversarial proceeding | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/02\/19\/pak-sc-an-appellate-adjudicatory-authority-cannot-challenge-courts-order-in-purely-adversarial-proceeding\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Pak SC | An appellate adjudicatory authority; cannot challenge Court\u2019s order in purely adversarial proceeding\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Supreme Court of Pakistan: The Division Bench of Mushir Alam and Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel, JJ. dismissed a petition filed by Securities\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/02\/19\/pak-sc-an-appellate-adjudicatory-authority-cannot-challenge-courts-order-in-purely-adversarial-proceeding\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2019-02-19T09:30:39+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/supreme_court_of_jpakistan.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1330\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"887\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Bhumika Indulia\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Bhumika Indulia\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"2 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/02\/19\/pak-sc-an-appellate-adjudicatory-authority-cannot-challenge-courts-order-in-purely-adversarial-proceeding\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/02\/19\/pak-sc-an-appellate-adjudicatory-authority-cannot-challenge-courts-order-in-purely-adversarial-proceeding\/\",\"name\":\"Pak SC | An appellate adjudicatory authority; cannot challenge Court\u2019s order in purely adversarial proceeding | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/02\/19\/pak-sc-an-appellate-adjudicatory-authority-cannot-challenge-courts-order-in-purely-adversarial-proceeding\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/02\/19\/pak-sc-an-appellate-adjudicatory-authority-cannot-challenge-courts-order-in-purely-adversarial-proceeding\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/supreme_court_of_jpakistan.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2019-02-19T09:30:39+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/02\/19\/pak-sc-an-appellate-adjudicatory-authority-cannot-challenge-courts-order-in-purely-adversarial-proceeding\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/02\/19\/pak-sc-an-appellate-adjudicatory-authority-cannot-challenge-courts-order-in-purely-adversarial-proceeding\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/02\/19\/pak-sc-an-appellate-adjudicatory-authority-cannot-challenge-courts-order-in-purely-adversarial-proceeding\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/supreme_court_of_jpakistan.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/supreme_court_of_jpakistan.jpg\",\"width\":1330,\"height\":887},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/02\/19\/pak-sc-an-appellate-adjudicatory-authority-cannot-challenge-courts-order-in-purely-adversarial-proceeding\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Pak SC | An appellate adjudicatory authority; cannot challenge Court\u2019s order in purely adversarial proceeding\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a\",\"name\":\"Bhumika Indulia\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg\",\"caption\":\"Bhumika Indulia\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_1\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Pak SC | An appellate adjudicatory authority; cannot challenge Court\u2019s order in purely adversarial proceeding | SCC Times","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/02\/19\/pak-sc-an-appellate-adjudicatory-authority-cannot-challenge-courts-order-in-purely-adversarial-proceeding\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Pak SC | An appellate adjudicatory authority; cannot challenge Court\u2019s order in purely adversarial proceeding","og_description":"Supreme Court of Pakistan: The Division Bench of Mushir Alam and Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel, JJ. dismissed a petition filed by Securities","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/02\/19\/pak-sc-an-appellate-adjudicatory-authority-cannot-challenge-courts-order-in-purely-adversarial-proceeding\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2019-02-19T09:30:39+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1330,"height":887,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/supreme_court_of_jpakistan.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Bhumika Indulia","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Bhumika Indulia","Est. reading time":"2 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/02\/19\/pak-sc-an-appellate-adjudicatory-authority-cannot-challenge-courts-order-in-purely-adversarial-proceeding\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/02\/19\/pak-sc-an-appellate-adjudicatory-authority-cannot-challenge-courts-order-in-purely-adversarial-proceeding\/","name":"Pak SC | An appellate adjudicatory authority; cannot challenge Court\u2019s order in purely adversarial proceeding | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/02\/19\/pak-sc-an-appellate-adjudicatory-authority-cannot-challenge-courts-order-in-purely-adversarial-proceeding\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/02\/19\/pak-sc-an-appellate-adjudicatory-authority-cannot-challenge-courts-order-in-purely-adversarial-proceeding\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/supreme_court_of_jpakistan.jpg","datePublished":"2019-02-19T09:30:39+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/02\/19\/pak-sc-an-appellate-adjudicatory-authority-cannot-challenge-courts-order-in-purely-adversarial-proceeding\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/02\/19\/pak-sc-an-appellate-adjudicatory-authority-cannot-challenge-courts-order-in-purely-adversarial-proceeding\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/02\/19\/pak-sc-an-appellate-adjudicatory-authority-cannot-challenge-courts-order-in-purely-adversarial-proceeding\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/supreme_court_of_jpakistan.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/supreme_court_of_jpakistan.jpg","width":1330,"height":887},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/02\/19\/pak-sc-an-appellate-adjudicatory-authority-cannot-challenge-courts-order-in-purely-adversarial-proceeding\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Pak SC | An appellate adjudicatory authority; cannot challenge Court\u2019s order in purely adversarial proceeding"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a","name":"Bhumika Indulia","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg","caption":"Bhumika Indulia"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_1\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/supreme_court_of_jpakistan.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":201242,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/09\/03\/application-under-sections-7-9-or-10-i-nclt-not-required-to-record-detailed-decision-thereunder-nclat\/","url_meta":{"origin":210294,"position":0},"title":"Application under Sections 7, 9 or 10 I&B Code not adversarial litigation; NCLT not required to record detailed decision thereunder: NCLAT","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"September 3, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT): A two-member bench comprising of Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya, Chairperson and Justice Bansi Lal Bhat, Member (Judicial)\u00a0 dismissed an appeal filed against the order of the National Company Law Tribunal, Chennai whereby the application filed by the Financial Creditor under Section 7 of the Insolvency\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":236196,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/09\/24\/all-hc-is-the-presence-of-complainant-at-summons-stage-for-adjudicatory-purpose-necessary-single-bench-discusses\/","url_meta":{"origin":210294,"position":1},"title":"All HC | Is the presence of complainant at summons stage for adjudicatory purpose necessary? Single Bench discusses","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"September 24, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"Allahabad High Court:\u00a0Dr Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, J., while addressing a criminal revision observed that, Trial Court Judge should not insist on the presence of complainant at the stage of service of summons\/warrants and\/as their presence would not be required for any adjudicatory purpose. FACTUAL MATRIX Complainant a practising advocate complained\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":296818,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/07\/14\/ngt-cannot-rely-solely-on-recommendations-of-expert-committee-supreme-court-legal-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":210294,"position":2},"title":"Judicial Body like NGT cannot simply accept Expert Committee recommendations without complying with Principles of Natural Justice: SC","author":"Editor","date":"July 14, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"The Court observed that the recommendations made by an Expert Committee are not binding on the NGT, they are only by way of assistance to enable the NGT to arrive at a correct decision in the matter.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"ngt","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/07\/ngt.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/07\/ngt.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/07\/ngt.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/07\/ngt.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":33861,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/01\/27\/writ-petition-filed-by-star-india-dismissed-for-want-of-maintainability\/","url_meta":{"origin":210294,"position":3},"title":"Writ Petition filed by Star India dismissed for want of maintainability","author":"Sucheta","date":"January 27, 2016","format":false,"excerpt":"Delhi High Court- Dismissing the writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging the orders of Telecom Disputes Settlement & Appellate Tribunal\u2019s (TDSAT) on the ground that the procedure adopted by the TDSAT in making the orders and the jurisdiction exercised in issuing the directions contained therein is beyond the powers\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":156584,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/09\/15\/trai-acts-exclusive-jurisdiction-grants-exemption-from-seeking-high-courts-permission-to-proceed-with-pending-telecom-petitions\/","url_meta":{"origin":210294,"position":4},"title":"TRAI Act\u2019s exclusive jurisdiction grants exemption from seeking High Court\u2019s permission to proceed with pending telecom petitions","author":"Saba","date":"September 15, 2017","format":false,"excerpt":"Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT): A group of three separate telecom and broadcasting petitions were directed against S. Tel Pvt. Ltd., Tulip Telecom Ltd., Loop Mobile (India) Pvt. Ltd. respectively as all of these companies had liquidation proceedings pending in different High Courts. The main issue for contention\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/TDSAT.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/TDSAT.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/TDSAT.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/TDSAT.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/TDSAT.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":217709,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/08\/05\/patna-hc-referring-authority-for-industrial-dispute-cannot-assume-role-of-quasi-judicial-body-while-conducting-conciliation-proceeding\/","url_meta":{"origin":210294,"position":5},"title":"Patna HC | Referring authority for industrial dispute cannot assume role of quasi-judicial body while conducting conciliation proceeding","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"August 5, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Patna High Court: Shivaji Pandey, J. allowed the writ application to the extent that the impugned order was remanded back to the competent authority to consider the claim of the petitioner afresh and take a decision in accordance with law. The petitioner challenged the order, whereby the competent authority had\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/210294","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/8808"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=210294"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/210294\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/66141"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=210294"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=210294"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=210294"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}