.....officer was in the nature of policy and administrative matters of the management and hence not an industrial dispute. i am afraid, in the factual matrix, the government did not exercise administrative jurisdiction but a quasi-judicial jurisdiction in exercise of section 10 to construe the dispute as not an industrial dispute and reject the claim of the petitioner. the question as to whether the assignment of duties by letter dated 24-4-2007, annexure-g, in relation to currency chest i.e., cash belonging to rbi is, in fact, in excess of the duties and responsibilities of special assistants, as recorded in paragraph 7(a) to (c) to the enclosure to the letter dated 5-8-2005, annexure-f is an industrial dispute or apprehends its existence required to be considered by the central government and having not done so, the orders impugned are unsustainable in law. 7. in the circumstances, the petition is allowed in part. the communications dated 11-6-2009 – annexure-n and 16-6-2010 – annexure p of the union government, are quashed and the proceeding remitted for consideration afresh and to pass orders strictly in accordance with law and in the light of the.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....into a judgment and decree. 3. the arbitral proceedings were under arbitration act, 1940. thus, the new arbitration act is not applicable to the facts of this case. under section 17 of the arbitration act, 1940, the award has to be presented before the court and after following the due procedure, the court may proceed to pass the judgment in accordance with the award and upon such judgment, the decree will follow. thus, it is clear that the award has to be presented before the court for getting itself converted into a judgment and decree. article 11 of the karnataka stamp act, 1957, deals with the award. the said article will have to be read along with section 33 of the karnataka stamp act. if article 11 is read with section 33 of the karnataka stamp act., it is clear that the award in question will have to be treated as an instrument and the same needs to be duly stamped. therefore, it is incumbent on the respondent to get the award duly stamped in accordance with law. in view of the said article, the respondent himself had made an application before the court below praying for return of the document for getting the award stamped. he had also filed a memo to that effect......
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....no. 2 to 8 submits that opposition to amendment of the tariff order dated 31.3.2010 passed by the commission is not maintainable in view of the fact that amendment of tariff is permissible under section 62 (4) of the act and the said provision is independent of the provision of section 61 or 62(1) and other related provisions of the act. according to the learned sr. counsel, section 62 (4) is an independent provision enabling a regulator to amend a tariff or a part of a tariff and the tribunal must not stand in the way, notwithstanding the fact that the impugned tariff order is under challenge before this tribunal at the instance of the four appellants. mr. pradeep mishra makes an addition that the proposed amendment will only be applicable with effect from the year 2011-2012 and this is a separate tariff proceeding. further it is submitted on behalf of the respondents that the appellants have right of representation in connection with the proceedings in relation to the amendment of the tariff order. mr. anand k ganesan, learned advocate for the appellants contradicts the submissions of mr. mishra to say that proceedings initiated is not at all the proceedings intended for.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....on the basis of the submissions of the state commission that order dated 30.5.2008 passed by the state commission was not challenged. this is factually incorrect as the appellant had challenged order dated 30.5.2008 of the state commission for the multi year tariff in appeal no. 12 of 2009. subsequently, by the time appeal no. 12 of 2009 was heard by the tribunal, the petition for final determination of capital cost of the project was filed before the state commission. therefore, this issue was not pressed by the appellant in appeal no. 12 of 2009. 2.5. employees cost: the state commission had allowed employees cost except for an amount of rs. 3.75 crores on account of deviation from the punjab state electricity board pay scales. this was challenged in the appeal before the tribunal. the tribunal relying on its earlier judgment dated 8.12.2008 passed in appeal no. 209 of 2006, rejected the claim of the review petitioner/appellant. however, in its judgment dated 8.12.2008 the tribunal dismissed the contention of the appellant on the ground that there was no specific challenge by the appellant. thus there was no finding by the tribunal on this issue. 2.6. interest on loan:.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....licensee in the state of maharashtra and a major beneficiary of the appellant’s power station, is the respondent no. 2. 3. the brief facts of the case are as under: 3.1. in the year, 1993, the dabhol power co. ltd. and enron group entered into a power purchase agreement with the maharashtra state electricity board for the establishment and sale of power from the gas based generating station at ratnagiri, maharashtra. 3.2. in the year 1999 block-i of the project was set up. however, dabhol and enron group ran into financial and other difficulties and they could not continue to operate the project. dabhol power co. ltd. and maharashtra state electricity board went into litigation. subsequently, in may 2001, the ratnagiri project was closed down and its assets were placed under the control of a receiver appointed by the high court of bombay. 3.3. following the efforts of the government of india and the govt. of maharashtra for reviving the dabhol power project the appellant’s company was incorporated in july 2005 and in october 2005 all the assets of the ratnagiri power project as well as the integrated lng terminal and associated infrastructure facilities were.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....of `1,00,00,000 (rupees one crore only) under section 15hb of the securities and exchange board of india act, 1992 (for short the act). 2. the facts of the case, in brief, are that the board conducted investigations into the alleged irregularities in the trading in the shares of adlabs films limited (for short the company) and the possible violation of the provisions of the act and the regulations made thereunder. the appellant is a shareholder and director of the company. he was holding 82,91,234 shares and was also classified as ‘designated employee’ under the regulations. on april 23, 2006 the company held its board meeting to approve the audited accounts for the financial year ending march 31, 2006; to recommend dividend and to consider proposal for demerger of the company’s fm radio business. the board of directors of the company approved the proposal for demerger of the fm radio business to a wholly owned subsidiary company (spv) and also issuance of pro rata shares by spv to the existing shareholders of the company in the ratio of two shares of the spv for every one share of the company. the company also recommended a dividend of 45 per cent for the.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....demand is issuing threats of disconnection of petitioner’s pois if the amount as demanded is not paid. 5. in view of the above facts, the applicant has requested for the following reliefs:“a. direct respondent bsnl to comply with this tribunal’s order dated 11.02.2011 and 1.3.2011 in petition 96 of 2011 and order dated 18.4.2011 passed in petition 141 of 2011 alongwith petition no.s 156 -169 of 2011 in its true spirit.direct the respondent bsnl not to coerce the petitioner under threat of disconnection to pay the demand raised for the period from 1.2.2004 to 13.11.2004. c. injunct the respondent bsnl from taking any coercive steps including the disconnection of petitioner’s pois till the final disposal of the petition.”6. mr. c. s. vaidyanathan, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that this tribunal by its interim order dated 18.04.2011 had clarified that only amount paid by the respondent to the petitioner for the period from 01.02.2004 to 13.11.2004 was refundable to the respondent. but the respondent is claiming the adc.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....states that for the period of dispute from 1.5.006 to 30.9.2006 the appellants have paid a tax amount of rs.24,684/- after taking into account the fact that they are eligible for the small scale exemption of rs. four lakhs. she also states that before quantifying the tax amount, the lower appellate authority has not allowed the small scale exemption and has given no finding in that regard though in paragraph 8 he has noted the claim of the appellants for the exemption. 3. heard the learned shri c. rengaraju. 4. considering the fact that the appellants have paid tax amounting to rs.24,684/-, the requirement of predeposit of the balance amount is waived and the appeal is taken up for final disposal with the consent of both sides. since the lower appellate authority has recorded the claim of the appellants regarding small scale exemption but has not considered the same, the impugned order cannot be sustained to that extent. hence the same is set aside and the matter is remanded to the original authority, with the consent of both sides, for redetermining the tax amount payable after considering the appellant’s claim for small scale exemption. the appeal is thus allowed by way.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....heard learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and learned government pleader for the respondent. 3. the petitioner is engaged in manufacture and export of coir products. as per the requirement of foreign buyers and in terms of the export orders, the petitioner has to attach tags and labels to each and every coir product exported giving product description in terms of the buyers' norms. the petitioner outsourced these tags and labels from printing presses, which have sales tax exemption under the notification issued by government of kerala. since suppliers of tags and labels did not collect sales tax on the sales made to the petitioner and such tags and labels were attached to the products exported, the assessing officer levied purchase tax under section 5a of the act holding that tags and labels purchased were consumed in the manufacture of coir products exported that attracts tax under section 5a of the act. the assessments completed disallowing exemption have been confirmed for the years 1998-1999 and 1999-2000 by the first appellate authority as well as the tribunal, against which these revision cases are filed. 4. learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : 2012CrLJ199(NOC)
.....and 457 of the indian penal code pending against him in the court of special judicial magistrate c.b.i. lucknow. 2. shorn of unnecessary details the facts material for the purpose of disposal of this petition are that in the matter of theft , leakage and sale of question papers of entrance test of all india post graduate medical entrance examination,2002 (a.i.p.g.m.e.e. 2002) an f.i.r., annexure no. 3 to this writ petition was lodged under the order of hon'ble high court, delhi. the petitioner though was not named in the said f.i.r., but the c.b.i. after having completed the investigation of the case filed charge sheet against several persons including the petitioner. the petitioner thereafter filed a petition under sections 482/483 of the code for quashing the charge sheet .the prayer for quashing the charge sheet was refused but finding substance in the contention that case for framing charges against petitioner is not made out, protection was granted to the petitioner to the effect that if any n.b.w. is issued against him, the same shall be kept in abeyance till the framing of the charges. the petition was disposed of accordingly. there after the petitioner appeared before the.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT