.....the appeal was within limitation. he refers to the impugned order of the appellate tribunal which according to him did not take into account the fact that, the order in original was served upon the petitioner only on december 20, 2004. on the contrary, the appellate authority had proceeded erroneously on the basis that the order in original was served upon the petitioner on march 18, 2004. there is no material to substantiate such a stand being taken in the impugned order passed by the appellate authorities and, therefore, it is erroneous and ought to be interfered. moreover, he refers to section 37c of the central excise act 1944 and submits that, speed post was not a prescribed mode of service at the material point of time. consequently, service of order in original by speed post prior to may 10, 2013 is not a valid service. the department is required to act in terms of the statute or not at all. the department did not serve the copy of the original through registered post with the acknowledgement due as mandated by statute. the question of commencement of period of limitation on march 18, 2004 cannot be taken into account, assuming that, the department had served the.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....(annexure-6 to the writ petition) and also for quashing the part of the inquiry report dated 19.07.2001 (annexure-3 to the writ petition).3. the factual matrix of the case is that while the petitioner was posted as junior engineer in agnu sub-division (presently in the state of bihar), he was issued memo of charge alleging inter alia that he released 200 bags of cement in a single day to the contractors irrespective of the fact that there was no arrangement for keeping the aforesaid bags at the site and hence he facilitated black marketing of the said cement bags. initially, one harihar mandal and after his superannuation, deo chandra jha, superintending engineer and finally birendra kumar singh was appointed as inquiry officer, who recorded his finding in the inquiry report submitted on 19.07.2001. thereafter, a second show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner vide letter no. 1405 dated 13.11.2002 disclosing the proposed punishment. the petitioner also filed his reply to the said second 2 show-cause, which was received on 01.12.2002 (annexure-5 to the writ petition). in the meantime, the cadre of the petitioner was allocated to the state of jharkhand and at the time of.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....arrears of salary, and to re-fix the pension payable to the respondents while holding that they were entitled to the post of apccf. 2. briefly the facts of the case are that on 28.05.1983, mr. v. rangaswamy, the respondent no.1, had entered the indian forest service. he was promoted to the post of chief conservator of forest ("ccf", for short) on 30.05.2007. he retired from the ifs on 30.11.2010. on the other hand, mr. k. s. aralikatti, the respondent no.2, was initially appointed on 18.05.1978, and was inducted in the ifs on 27.11.1985. he was promoted on the post of ccf on 29.05.2009. he retired on 30.10.2010. 3. according to the respondents, after having completed twenty-five years of service, they were eligible for promotion to the next higher post of apccf. further according to them, while they were working as ccf, the principal chief conservator of forest ("pccf", for short) sent a list of thirty ccfs to the government for considering their promotion to the post of apccf. he suggested that due to stagnation in the service, ccfs could be promoted to the post of apccf and given ex-cadre appointments. by another letter, the pccf recommended that the case of respondent no.1.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....compensation of `.10,000/- towards loss of consortium, `.7,000/-towards funeral expenses and `.15,000/- towards loss of love and affection. in the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that towards loss of consortium, the claimants are entitled for compensation of `.50,000/-. towards funeral expenses and transportation of body `.20,000/- is awarded. towards love and affection, a sum of `.30,000/-, towards loss of estate a sum of `.10,000/- as awarded by the tribunal below has been retained as it date of judgement 14.06.2017, mfa no.25161/2012 smt. bhagirathi mohite & others vs. rahul laxman patil & another is. thus, in total the claimants are entitled for a sum of 15 `.9,31,398/- rounded of to `.9,31,400/-. the brake up figures are as under:1. 2 3 4 5 towards loss of dependency `.8,21,398/- towards loss of consortium `.50,000/- towards funeral expenses and transportation of dead body `.20,000/- love and `.30,000/- loss of towards affection towards loss of estate total rounded of to `.10,000/- `.9,31,398/- `.9,31,400/- 17. since the judgment and award passed by the tribunal being lower than what the reasonable compensation was, the appeal deserves to be.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....to assail the above-mentioned judgment and order on sentence passed by the trial court.8. the case for the prosecution lies in a narrow compass. the factual matrix may be noted.9. as mentioned at the outset, the victim child was enrolled in a school for formal education and the record produced by the principal of the said educational institution (pw-2), inter alia, based on original admission form, admission register and affidavit (ex. pw2/a to c) confirms, by formal certificate (ex. pw2/d), that her date of birth declared at the time of enrolment was 13.03.2007. since the incident statedly took place on 24.04.2014, the child was a little more than seven years in age at the relevant point of time.10. it may be mentioned here itself that the age of the prosecutrix has been variously stated at different stages in that in the fir, lodged by the mother (pw-4), she was described as a girl aged five and half years which was the age mentioned to dr. rashmi verma, sr. resident (gynae) of sanjay gandhi memorial hospital, mangolpuri (hospital) at the time of medical examination of the prosecutrix leading to preparation of the mlc (ex. pw7/b), which was proved by dr. m. das (pw-7) and dr......
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....to the said application of plaintiff/respondent challenging the material allegations of plaintiff/respondent no.1 and dealing with all matters of fact specifically. succinctly stated, the plaintiff’s case is that the suit premises at 18, hemanta basu sarani, belonged to great eastern hotel and the defendant was monthly tenant therein. the state of west bengal acquired the property by legislative enactment and it vested in the state. subsequently, by successive legislations and government notifications, the property ultimately vested in the plaintiff company with effect from 05.10.2005. defendant failed to pay monthly rent at the rate of rs.40,000/-. plaintiff served notice dated 17.05.2012 upon the defendant determining the tenancy, but the defendant did not vacate the suit premises even after expiry of notice period. the defendant, in the affidavit-in-opposition to g.a.2408 of 2012 denied the plaintiff’s case. the defendant, inter alia, challenged the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court, locus standi of the plaintiff to file the suit, plaintiff’s acquisition of ownership in the suit premises and plaintiff’s claim of monthly rent as rs.40,000/-. specific defence of the.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....seeks the materials as confisticated or the value thereof. the learned advocate for the department submits that there are disputed questions of fact involved in this case. the department had taken custody of the materials covered under three consignments considering 298 lumps. the department had also undertaken a test of six samples out of the 298 lumps. the entirety of the lumps were not tested. the six samples had been produced results as noted in the orderin-original. he submits that, the materials seized were stored at a godown which was kept under lock and key and was sealed. the lock and the seal were not tampered with. there was no possibility of the godown being accessed without any notice by any unauthorised person. in fact, the godown was not accessed at all apart from the time to make over possession of the materials to the petitioner. as to the disputed questions of facts with regard to the quality of the materials being involved, he submits that, it would be proper for the petitioner to file an appropriate proceedings for the purpose of realisation of its claim, if any. he further submits that there are 51 lumps of nickel-silver scrap available for the purpose.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....claimants represented through their grand-mother i.e. the claimant/appellant, in the present appeal. the allowances are part of the salary in the facts and circumstances of the case. it is evident that there is in consistency in the statement of witnesses with respect to the amount of khoraki paid to the deceased. in such circumstance, the tribunal should have assessed the monthly income of the deceased at rs.3,000/- p.m. therefore, the annual income of the deceased is assessed at rs.36,000/- out of which one third(1/3) is deducted towards the personal expenses accordingly, the annual loss of dependency is assessed at rs.24,000/-. the deceased was aged 32 years hence the multiplier of 17 is applicable consequently, the total loss of dependency is calculated at rs.4,08,000/- and a lump sum amount of rs.1.5 lakh is awarded towards funeral expenses, loss of estate and towards non-pecuniary damages for loss of love and affection. thus, the total compensation is assessed at rs.5,58,000/- with interest at the rate of 6 % p.a. payable from the date of the order of the court below on the enhanced amount. the respondent/insurance company shall pay the 4. aforesaid amount to the.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....not only be leading to escalation of costs, for reasons not of the petitioner's making, but also cause severe embarrassment to all concerned. the fact that the central government has given its full support to the project and accorded financial grant, signifies the national importance attached to this project and accordingly the learned counsel seeks to allow the writ petitions setting aside the impugned order dated 31.5.2014 [annexure-r] to the writ petitions. 11. the learned counsel has placed reliance on the following judgments: [a] 'urban improvement trust and others v. maharana pratap smarak samiti [b] 't.s.r. subramanian and others v. union of india and others' [(2013) 15 scc 732] d.b.civil special appeal nos.444 of 1971 and 117 of 1972 [raj] [c] 'century spinning and manufacturing company ltd., and another v. the ulhasnagar municipal council and another' [1970 [1] scc 582] [d] 'gujarat state financing corporation v. m/s. lotus hotels pvt. ltd.,' [(1983) 3 scc 379] [e] 'union of india and others v. godfrey philips india ltd.,' [air 1986 sc 806] [f] 'ishwar dutt v. land acquisition collector and another' [(2005) 7 scc 190] [g] 'b.h. veeresha v. the government of karnataka.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....to order xxiii, rule 3 of the code of civil procedure, 1908, contemplates that when it has been alleged by one party and denied by the other that an adjustment or satisfaction has been arrived at, the court would decide the question immediately. this opportunity was never availed of by the appellant. the compromise petition was accepted by a detailed order on march 26, 2004, which has been upheld by this court by the judgment and order dated july 7, 2006, in an appeal by a third party. the plaintiff never challenged the said order dated march 26, 2004. the supreme court of india did not set aside the order recording the compromise. therefore, it was expected that this plaintiff-appellant would pay the court-fees in terms of the order recording the compromise. the plaintiff did not appear before the court nor explained as to why court-fees could not be paid. naturally, the trial court rejected the plaint for non-payment of court-fees. 19. we do not find any merit in the appeal. 20. the appeal is dismissed. 21. in view of the dismissal of the appeal, i.a.no.1 of 2015 does not survive for consideration and is, also, dismissed. 22. we make no order as to costs.
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT