Latest Cases

Commissioner of Income Tax - Tds Vs. Icl Shipping Ltd.

Court : Chennai

Reported in : [2009]315ITR195(Mad)

.....and perused the relevant provisions viz., sections 2(30), 2(42) and 6 of the income tax act, 1961 as well as taken note of the indisputable fact that the crews were on duty outside the territorial waters of india in the ship of a company of indian origin for more than 182 days.4. on a reading of sections 2(30), 2(42) and 6 together, for a person to claim the status of a 'non-resident' has only to satisfy that though such person as a crew works for an indian shipping company rendered such service for the said company in the ship outside the territorial waters of india for a period exceeding 182 days. for that purpose it would be relevant to extract sections 2(30), 2(42) and explanation to section 6, which reads as under:section 2(30): 'non-resident' means a person who is not a 'resident' and for the purposes of sections 92, 93 and 168, includes a person who is not ordinarily resident within the meaning of clause (6) of section 6;section 2(42) 'resident' means a person who is resident in india within the meaning of section 6;section 6: for the purposes of this act,-(1) an individual is said to be resident in india in any previous year, if he-(a) is in india in that year.....

Muthoot Finance Pvt. Ltd. Rep. by Its Regional Manager, Mr. C. Rajan P ...

Court : Karnataka

.....in terms of the memorandum of association and the articles of association. the respondent being a competent authority has taken a stand contrary to the material on record in their objection. they have stated that the representation was considered and it was rejected, which is not true. keeping in view the facts and circumstances stated supra, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, it would suffice for this court to direct the appropriate authority to consider the application/representation of the petitioner vide annexure-a dated 31.03.2008 and decide the same after affording reasonable opportunity to the petitioner strictly in accordance with law end taking into consideration that similarly situated institution whose request has been considered, and dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible at any rate within a period of three months from the dale of receipt of a copy of this order.4. learned additional government advocate is given four weeks time to file his memo of appearance.

M.V. Ratna Rao Vs. the Senior Divisional Operating Manager, Vijayawada ...

Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Hyderabad

.....meted out to him by the disciplinary and appellate authorties cannot but shock the conscience of this tribunal. once a man is so severely sick, the fact of his temporary absence could have been taken as having being inevitable and it would be impracticable to expect that one would be on duty when he is so seriously ill. this would be too much to expect.” 4. the tribunal disposed of the said oa with the following order :- "8. therefore, this tribunal is constrained to remand the case back to the disciplinary authority once again to reconsider the punishment imposed on the applicant keeping in view the unavoidable circumstances under which he absented himself from his duties temporarily. he may consider a more lenient punishment seeing the unavoidability and inevitability of his absence due to his serious physical condition caused by loose motions and diarrhoea, which could result in dehydration and some unforeseen consequences. the orders passed by the disciplinary and appellate authorities are, therefore, quashed and the case is remanded back to the disciplinary authority for re-consideration of the case and for passing appropriate orders within a period of two months,.....

Jenat Francis Vs. Union of India Represented by the General Manager, S ...

Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam

.....that her name has been mentioned in the list of retrenched casual labourers of the transportation/commercial department of the southern railway, trivandrum division and similarly placed persons have been reengaged/absorbed by the railways. 5. in my considered opinion this application is nothing but a frivolous one. the applicant has woken after 24 years to make a representation to the divisional railway manager, trivandrum vide annexure a-2 dated 16.6.2007 stating that she had worked for 15 months during the period from 1980 to 1984 and making an unfounded claim that she was a retrenched casual labourer. in the above facts and circumstances of the case, i dismiss this o.a. there shall be no order as to costs.

P. Sreeramulu Vs. the Superintendent of Post Offices and Others

Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Hyderabad

.....respondents are sustainable in law? 8. similar cases have been disposed of by this tribunal, the latest being o.a.no.737/2007, dated 31.7.2008. the facts of the cited case are exactly similar to the facts of the instant case. a similar charge memo was issued against the applicant in oa.no.737/2007 in respect of the fraud committed by the same spm of yallur so. this tribunal set aside the punishment imposed on the ground that inspite of denial of charges by the applicant, punishment was imposed without conducting enquiry. this tribunal set aside the final orders dated 24.4.2006 as well as the orders dated 15.12.2006 in that case giving liberty to conduct regular inquiry in respect of the allegations made against the applicant in accordance with rule 16(1) (b) of the ccs (cca) rules, 1965. it is further directed therein that the amounts already recovered from the pay of the applicant shall be refunded within two months from the date receipt of that order. here, in the instant case also, the applicant specifically denied the allegation of negligence on his part and he specifically requested for an inquiry to be conducted. but no opportunity was given to the applicant by the.....

T.K. Hamsa Vs. Union of India Represented by General Manager, Southern ...

Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam

.....with letter dated 25.1.2007 which is the panel for selection to the post of ticket collector. the applicant has also challenged the annexure a-9 order dated 4.5.2007 which is the promotion order wherein in general quota, respondent no.4 happens to be the juniormost promoted individual. 2. in his oa, the applicant had annexed annexure a-3 medical certificate which has been issued by sr divisional medical officer(hospital), southern railway hospital, palakkad on 6.12.2006 wherein it indicated that the applicant is fit for service in bee one with glass. the applicant relies upon the aforesaid certificate to challenge the impugned order dated 18.6.2008 whereby the aforesaid certificate was cancelled. 3. respondents have contested the oa. according to them, the applicant was declared unfit for holding such post for which medical standard is "aye two" to "bee two". in this regard, they relied upon the medical certificate issued by the senior medical officer, railway hospital, palakkad issued on 12.11.1997 vide annexure r-4. they have also relied upon the dpo/pgt communication dated 12.11.1997 (annexure r-3). the said letter is also on the same lines as the certificate referred to.....

V. Satyanarayana Vs. the Divisional Railway Manager (Personnel), Secun ...

Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Hyderabad

.....also seeking a direction to promote the applicant to the post of carpenter mcm with retrospective effect in the interests of justice. 3. relevant facts in brief are as follows: the applicant joined as carpenter in the year 1972 on casual basis and later he was regularised in the year 1976. later, he was promoted as carpenter grade iii, grade ii and then to grade i and he has become eligible for promotion to carpenter mcm basing on the seniority. therefore, the applicant claims that he is entitled to be considered for the vacancy to which the respondents proposed to promote the 5th respondent. the applicant contended that the 5th respondent is junior to him and therefore, the applicant may be given priority in filling up the said vacancy. 4. the respondents in the reply though admitted that the applicant is senior to the 5th respondent, pleaded that there were three vacancies out of which, two meant for un-reserved and one for sc and that the two un-reserved vacancies have been filled up by promoting two carpenters who are senior to the applicant and the remaining sc vacancy was to be filled up by the next available sc candidate and the 5th respondent herein being the next.....

Shri Yashwant Aatmaram Limaye Dombivali(E) Vs. Shri Mahesh Prabhkar Li ...

Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

.....had even moved the state commission about his inability to file the appeal. the delay being unintentional and not deliberate we find that it is satisfactorily explained and hence, allow the application for condonation of delay bearing misc.application no. 2012/2008. coming to the merit of the appeal, it could be seen that in an impugned order a reference to the compensation to rs.9 lakhs claimed by the complainant is made. however, when we made enquiry from the appellant/complainant about the copy of complaint, he had answered to us that the copy of affidavit, which is produced in the appeal paper book is in fact a complaint and there is no separate copy of the complaint. said affidavit is dated 18/07/2007. nowhere therein there is any reference to claim for compensation of rs. 9lakhs. therefore, we accept the statement on its face value made in the impugned order/award by the forum below to the effect that the complainant made a claim for compensation of rs.9 lakhs, which he failed to substantiate or establish. in the affidavit dated 18/07/2007, supra, it is mentioned that the complainant had received a possession of his flat as per development agreement in the month of.....

Life Insurance Corporation of India, Life Insurance Corporation of Ind ...

Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

.....was not disclosed by the insured/deceased/haridas patel while taking the policy in question. it is as many as seven policies were not disclosed. under the circumstances, the basic principle to cover the insurance business of utmost bonafideness being the casualty, the insurance company rightly repudiated the insurance claim. this view is consistently taken by this commission in the past. hence, holding repudiation of the insurance claim proper, we find forum below erred in passing impugned award/order. thus, the order: order: 1. appeal is allowed. 2. impugned order/award dated 31/01/2009 is set aside. 3. in terms the complaint stands dismissed. 4. misc.application nos.393/2009-stay stands disposed of as infructuous. 5. in the given circumstances, there is no order as to costs. 5. copies of the order herein be furnished to the parties.

Mrs. Shantiben Popatlal Shah and Another Vs. Amar Deep Co-operative Ho ...

Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

.....restrained o.p.no.1 to 3 from creating any third party interest in the common open space and common utility space of the construction. 2) briefly facts to the extent material may be stated as under: 3) complainant amardeep co-operative housing society filed consumer complaint against m/s.ambika constructioin company, vakola, santacruz(east)mumbai. it also impleaded mr.kamlesh popatlal shah and mrs.shantiben popatlal shah and mr.prakash p.gala as o.p.no.2 to 4, r/o flat no.d/501, first floor, golden square, near surendra nagar, kalina, santrcruz(east)mumbai. the society pleaded that the construction of their building was made by m/s.ambika construction company on the land belonging to o.p.no.2 and 3 and o.p.no.4 appears to have no connection with the present dispute. the o.p.no.1 to 3 did not form the society of flat purchasers and did not execute conveyance deed in favour of society in respect of land and building as per maharashtra ownership flat act. the society apprehended that since no conveyance deed was executed, o.ps were intending to use common utility space and construction for their gain and therefore they filed consumer complaint for conveyance and for injection.....