Latest Cases

H.N. Saini S/O Late Sh. L.R. Saini Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through th ...

Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

.....to decide whether the government acted honestly in creating a post or refusing to create a post or its decision suffers from malafide, legal or factual; (f) as long as the decision to abolish the post is taken in good faith in the absence of material, interference by the court is not warranted. with the above principles, let us consider whether the abolition of the posts of accounts executives are justified and consequential order of termination terminating the respondent-herein from the said post is sustainable.20. if one has regard to above, if a decision to abolish the post is not taken in good faith and is arbitrary, the same has to be interfered in a judicial review.21. with the above position of law discerns from the ratio (supra) an order passed by the government would not be effective unless it is published or when a definite methodology of its being approved by higher authority is adopted or unless the approval is given, it will not come into effect.22. as per the laid down methodology, in case of abolition of post on siu study and recommendations, when the administrative ministries competent to take a decision, it attains finality as to the abolition of the post.....

Dr. MozaffaruddIn S/O Late Shri S. Vs. Employees State Insurance

Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

.....jadeja v. rajkot municipal corporation 2008 (1) scc (l & s) 49, it has been held that in terminating the services, if the discharge order makes allegations against the applicant, then the order is stigmatic.5. having regard to the settled principles of law, applicant has assailed an order passed on 14.5.2007, whereby on the basis of a complaint and also on the basis of an enquiry vide stigmatic order applicant was terminated from service.6. the applicant was appointed as a junior resident in esi on fixed emoluments initially for a period of six months on 15.7.2006 and thereafter the tenure was extended upto 18.7.2008 by an order issued on 20.1.2007. on an allegation of alleged threatening and misbehavior applicant's services were terminated casting a stigma without giving him an opportunity, which is being challenged by the applicant's counsel.7. on the other hand, respondents in their reply relying upon the following decisions, stated that the oa is not maintainable and it is stated that the tenure appointment was on contract basis and as such as per the terms of the appointment the applicant was removed in view of his bad behaviour, which is a condition of.....

Uniproducts (India) Ltd. Vs. Securities and Exchange Board of India

Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT

.....limited company incorporated under the provisions of the companies act, 1956 and its shares are listed on the bombay stock exchange. it has its manufacturing facilities at noida in the state of uttar pradesh and rewari in the state of haryana. the company proposed to expand its rewari plant and with a view to finance the expansion and diversification plan, it came out in february/march, 2007 with an issue of 45,25,254 equity shares of rs. 10/- each for cash at a premium of rs. 30/- (issue price of rs. 40/-) per equity share aggregating to rs. 1810.10 lacs on rights basis to the existing equity shareholders of the company in the ratio of one equity share for every one equity share held as on january 15, 2007. before the letter of offer was issued to the equity shareholders of the company, it was sent to the securities and exchange board of india (for short the board) for its comments.this is the requirement of the securities and exchange board of india (disclosure & investor protection) guidelines, 2000 (for short the dip guidelines). the board had no adverse comments to offer and the rights issue was allowed to go through. it may be mentioned that the scrip of the appellant.....

Eider E-commerce Ltd. Vs. Securities and Exchange Board of India

Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT

.....board was heard by us on 14.2.2008 ex parte.the appellant has in its reply to the show cause notice as well as other communications, disputed the facts mentioned in the show cause notice. as already observed, the question which arises in this appeal is whether an acquirer who already holds more than 75 per cent of the shares in a company is required to make a public announcement in accordance with the takeover code if he wants to acquire further shares. unfortunately, we did not have any assistance from the appellant in resolving this question as it had not appeared before us at any stage and since this matter is likely to have repercussions in other cases as well, it was decided to seek the assistance of an amicus curiae. mr. p. n. modi, advocate was requested to assist us in this matter. we have heard dr. poornima advani, learned counsel for the board and mr. p.n. modi amicus curiae at length.6. regulation 11 of the takeover code, as it stood in february and march 2000, is reproduced below for facility of reference. (1) no acquirer who together with persons acting in concert with him has acquired, in accordance with the provisions of law, 15% or more but less than 75% of the.....

Uma Singh Vs. the State of Bihar

Court : Patna

.....character. he was also not aware whether or not he was an active member of the communist party. he was not related to chandra bhushan singh and in fact belonged to different caste.18. p.w. 12 is chandra bhushan singh, and is the full brother of the deceased. he had deposed to the effect that on 24.6.1986, shiv bahadur singh had gone to. hasanpur with some personal work on a bicycle. he did not return in the night and they thought that he had stayed there over-night. next day in the morning, p.w. 11 (lakpati mahto) had called his cousin brother, birendra prasad singh (p.w. 7) over to his place and had shown the bicycle which he had found abandoned by the side of the orchard. the cycle had a broken frame. birendra prasad singh had then gone over to the residence of p.w. 12 and had informed him about the bicycle. thereafter he alongwith birendra prasad singh, surendra singh, and baijnath singh went out in search of shiv bahadur singh. they met jagdish singh and learnt from him that mukhiya jee had been done to death and his dead body was in the orchard. the investigating officer had gone over to the orchard. he had identified his signature on fardbeyan which has been marked ext......

Dinesh Bulakhi Harijan and Laxman Anandu Bhagat Vs. the State

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : 2009CriLJ114

.....significance' but as a matter of law, proof of the existence of a motive is never regarded as being indispensable for conviction. when the facts are clear, 'absence of proof of motive' is immaterial and 'does not break the link in the chain of circumstances connecting the accused with the crime'. (para 17, p.1181).10. in this background, when the circumstances which have been established on the basis of the evidence on record are considered, what emerges is thus:(i) both the accused were employed with pw 1 and used to reside in the workshop from monday to saturday and received their meals from the family of pw 1;(ii) on saturdays, the accused went home to airoli, new bombay; airoli was the place where the accused were temporarily residing;(iii) after the incident took place on 1st february 2003, the accused maintained contact with pw 1 for about 4 or 5 days and disappeared thereafter;(iv) the first appellant came to be apprehended at the kurla railway station on 22nd march 2003, while the second appellant was apprehended from the state of bihar on 26th march 2003;(v) the first appellant led the police and the panch witnesses to a remote and secluded site near a nallah.....

Mangal S/O. Balasaheb Deshmane Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Distri ...

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : (2008)110BOMLR2814

.....learned additional sessions judge, shrirampur, in criminal appeal no. 16/2006, thereby dismissing the appeal filed by the present petitioner.2. the facts, in brief, giving rise to the present petition are as under:a complaint came to be lodged by one namdeo bapurao javale on 9th december 2005, alleging therein that on 9th december 2005, he heard sound of a tree falling. he states that when he got up, he was assaulted by stick by three persons. the complainant further states that the relatives of the complainant came there and there was a scuffle between the thieves and the villagers. it is further stated that the said tree was taken away by unknown persons in a greenish jeep. during the investigation, the aforesaid jeep came to be seized by the police on 10th march 2006. the matter was reported to the concerned forest officer on 30th march 2006 and subsequently vide order dated 17th may 2006, the said jeep came to be confiscated.3. being aggrieved by the order of confiscation, an appeal as provided under section 61-d of the indian forest act, 1927 (for short, 'the act'), was filed by the present petitioner. the same is also dismissed. hence, the present petition.4. mr. h.d......

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Indo Saudi Services (Travel) (P) Ltd.

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : (2008)219CTR(Bom)562; [2009]310ITR306(Bom)

.....hereunder:whether the incentive commission paid to the sister company which was more than other sub-agents allowable for deduction3. the relevant facts giving rise to the present appeals are briefly set out hereunder:(i) the assessee's business is that of being general sales agents of saudi arabian airlines. the assessee earned commission @ 12 per cent from saudi arabian airlines on the tickets booked/sold by them. the assessee appointed several agents including their sister concern, viz., m/s middle east international and paid incentive commission to such agents, by way of handling charges.(ii) for the asst. yrs. 1991-92 and 1992-93 the ao by his orders dt. 25th march, 1994 and 31st jan., 1995 respectively held that the incentive commission paid to m/s middle east international (sister concern of the assessee) was half per cent more than other sub-agents. the ao invoked section 40a(2) of the it act and disallowed the excess commission paid to the assessee's sister concern @ 1/2 per cent. the cit(a) by orders dt. 5th jan., 1995 and 14th nov., 1995 confirmed the disallowance for asst. yrs 1991-92 and 1992-93 respectively.(iii) the assessee carried the matter further by filing.....

Vishal Damodar Patil Vs. Vishakha Vishal Patil

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : 2009CriLJ107

.....counsel appearing for the parties were heard on the last date. with a view to appreciate the submissions, it will be necessary to refer to the facts of the case in brief.the first respondent filed an application under section 12 of the protection of women from domestic violence act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the said act). the learned magistrate passed an order on 4th january, 2008 on the said application directing the petitioner-husband to pay interim maintenance at the rate of rs. 1,000/- p.m. the learned magistrate also directed that the first respondent-wife was permitted to reside in a snared house situated at village shedung, post ajiwali, taluka panvel, district raigad. an appeal was preferred by the petitioner by invoking section 29 of the said act. the appeal was dismissed by the learned additional sessions judge by order dated 15th july, 2008.2. the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that there was no prayer made by the first respondent for grant of any interim relief. he submitted that in absence of any prayer in the main application in under section 12 of the said act or in absence of any separate application filed by the.....

Bank of Maharashtra Vs. Bank of Maharashtra Karmachari Sangh

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : [2008(119)FLR534]; (2009)ILLJ579Bom

.....pursuant to the departmental enquiry.3. bearing in mind these clauses of the aforesaid settlements, it would be necessary to advert to the facts in the present case which are undisputed.4. the workman was charge-sheeted and an enquiry was held against him. the charge-sheet is dated may 3, 1978. the departmental enquiry initiated against the workman resulted in him being punished with a warning on april 14, 1984. the order was communicated to the workman on april 25, 1984. the workman was not promoted to the post of special assistant in accordance with the settlement of 1983. therefore he raised an industrial dispute contending that his junior had been promoted as a special assistant, contrary to the provisions of the settlement in vogue. as the company did not pay heed to the demand of the workman to promote him, the respondent union sought a reference for adjudication of the dispute on behalf of the workman. the dispute was referred for adjudication to the central government industrial tribunal.5. parties filed their pleadings before the court. the petitioner bank contended in its written statement that since the workman was charge-sheeted on may 3, 1978, it was the.....