.....court has heard the submissions of ms sonia sharma, learned counsel for the appellant and ms kavita jha, learned counsel for the respondent. 5. the facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are that the respondent, tops security limited, is engaged in the business of providing security services. an investigation carried out by the directorate general of central excise intelligence revealed that the respondent was charging and collecting service tax from its clients but the service tax that was paid was not commensurate with the amount received for the services rendered. accordingly, a show cause notice (scn) dated 20th october, 2009 was issued to the respondent by the commissioner of service tax demanding service tax amounting to rs.8,15,44,386/- for the period 2004-05 to 2008-09 by invoking the extended period and proposing penalty under section 78 of the finance act, 1994. subsequently, scn dated 10th april, 2011 demanding differential service tax of rs.89,76,597/- for the period 2009-10 and another scn dated 20th october, 2011 demanding differential service tax of rs.81,07,919/- to the period 2010-11 were also issued. in these scns penalty under section 76 of the.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....petitioner/ employer, can be summarized, in brief, as follows: (a) the respondent/ employee was appointed as a supervisor in the petitioner sugar factory in 1986. (b) on 27.01.1987 he applied for appointment as an assistant security officer since the said post was vacant. (c) one mr.s.b.supekar was appointed as an assistant security officer. (d) the respondent was aggrieved by the said appointment and therefore, he confronted the managing director of the petitioner sugar factory and abused him in foul and filthy language. (e) the respondent was suspended by the order dated 31.01.1987 w.e.f. 01.02.1987. (f) specific charges were levelled upon him and after conducting the domestic enquiry, he was dismissed from service by way of punishment by the order dated 03.08.1987, but made effective from 31.01.1987. (g) the respondent filed complaint (ulp) no.53/1987 before the labour court for challenging his dismissal. (h) though the prayers indicate that the respondent sought quashing and setting aside of the order of the dismissal, it was not specifically pleaded that the dismissal order be set aside on the ground that it was made effective with retrospective effect. (i) the labour.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....objections, however, the defendants agree to the area report but they object to the plan prepared by the commissioner since it does not reflect the factual structure at site i.e well, likewise there are other structures which are not shown in the plan. 6. considering the rival contentions and the arguments canvassed, the learned trial judge has accepted the proposal submitted by the collector. in the present petition the petitioners has prayed to refer the matter to another commissioner in terms of order 26 rule 14(2) and (3) of cpc. 7. i have heard arguments of mr. m. pereira, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and mr. v. menezes, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 1 and 2. 8. during the course of arguments, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the factual position appearing in the suit property by referring to the map. the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has argued that there is no access for the petitioners to reach their property, if proposed plan is accepted. he further argued that some of the structures have not been mentioned in the map prepared by the collector, therefore, matter is required to.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....names of the respondents nos. 4 to 68 at exh. 103. 5. the parties shall be referred to as per their original status before the trial court. 6. brief facts of the case may be stated as follows:- in the year 1964, the administrator of goa, daman and diu, passed an order and thereby requisitioned the property belonging to joaquim francisco roque santana cota, of margao, as per the powers under section 29 of the defence of india act, 1962. after requisition, the state of goa neither paid any compensation to the joaquim francisco roque santana cota during his lifetime or his successors-in-interest nor acquired the property as mandated under the law. the suit property was apparently requisitioned for rehabilitation of persons displaced by acquisition of land for establishment of military camp at navelim. in consequence of the requisition of the suit property, the possession and control thereof, has passed on to the defendant no.1/respondent no.1 state of goa whose interests are represented herein by its chief secretary. the petitioner herein filed a suit bearing special civil suit no. 119/1993/a which was subsequently renumbered as civil suit no. 30/2010/i for restoration of the suit.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....years 1 year 6 monthsrs.1000/- rs.500/- rs.500/-two months two months three months all the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. the brief facts giving rise to this prosecution are that shinderpal, the husband of complainant-injured narinder kaur was working as a labourer to earn the livelihood. on 07.06.2001, at about 11.30. a.m, the complainant was standing outside the gate of her house. appellant-accused harkishan was standing in his 'haveli', which is situated in front of the house of complainant. harkishan was to recover some money from the husband of complainant. accused-appellant harkishan demanded the money from the complainant. she asked that they were undergoing the financial hardship and will return the money after one or two days. at this, appellant harkishan got enraged and started abusing her. he took out a knife from his dab and started giving repeated blows. due to which, complainant suffered injuries on various parts of her body. she raised alarm hearing which her nephew deepa and her husband shinderpal were attracted to the spot and rescued her from the clutches of the assailant. the complainant was taken to civil hospital, phagwara by her husband.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits in accordance with law.2. sans details, the facts as disclosed in the writ application, in a nutshell, is that while the petitioner was posted at dhanbad, charges were framed against him along with others and show cause was asked from him. in pursuance thereto, the petitioner submitted his reply denying the same and the show cause reply was found unsatisfactory and the petitioner was proceeded departmentally. in the departmental proceeding, the matter was enquired into and the inquiry officer held the petitioner guilty of charges. on the basis of inquiry report, the disciplinary authority agreeing with findings of the inquiry officer has passed order of dismissal from services, which has been affirmed by the appellate as well as the revisional authority. being aggrieved by the order passed by the disciplinary, appellate as well as revisional authority and the petitioner left with no other alternative efficacious and speedy remedy, has approached this court invoking extra-ordinary jurisdiction under article 226 of the constitution of india for redressal of his grievances.3......
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....for the petitioner also submits that the respondents authorities are likely to proceed in a biased manner against the petitioner. in the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the impugned proceeding is liable to be interfered. learned counsel for the state has relied upon the notings which form the very basis of the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, to dispute that 3. a decision to impose minor punishment has already been taken by the competent authority. reference has been made to the notings dated 28th january, 2011 of the departmental secretary to the chief secretary and thereafter deliberations undertaken with the chief secretary of the state. he has also referred to the notings at page 39 of the supplementary counter affidavit filed on their behalf on 27th november, 2015, of the departmental secretary i.e. dated 24th february, 2011 and decision taken by the competent authority through the hierarchy of the chief secretary of the state on 1.3.2011. it is submitted that the notings on the file would not amount to a decision as alleged by the petitioner and it is only upon final decision taken by the competent authority i.e., the hon'ble chief minister of the.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....regulations, 1992 (for short the regulations) as amended from time to time including schedule iii and iiia, it is not necessary to go into the facts. it is sufficient to notice that the appellant is a stock- broker trading, inter alia, as a member of the bombay stock exchange limited since 29.1.2004. it is not in dispute that the appellant and stock- brokers in general are regulated under the provisions of the act and for conducting their trade or business they are required to be registered with sebi under the regulations. such registration is mandatory in terms of section 12 of the act whereas regulation 10 requires that for obtaining certificate of registration from sebi, every applicant shall pay such fees and in such manner as specified in schedule iii or iiia, as the case may be. the part relating to schedule iiia was inserted by the sebi (stock brokers and sub-brokers) act (third amendment) regulations 2006 with effect from 1.10.2006. regulation 10 also empowers sebi to suspend the registration certificate of a stock-broker if he fails to pay the fees and on such suspension the stock-broker shall cease to sell or deal in securities as a stock-broker. the appellant.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....in support 2 thereof and also for direction upon the respondents to reinstate with all consequential benefits without break in service.2. the brief facts as disclosed in the writ application, is that the petitioner was initially appointed as clerk in state bank of india and subsequently the petitioner has been promoted to the junior management grade scale-1. while continuing as such at digwadih branch, the petitioner was served vide memo dated 16.09.2005 wherein it has been informed that the decision has been taken initially by departmental proceeding against him and alongwith the memo statute of evidences were also enclosed, the allegations contained 21 charges during his incumbency at a.m.y. damkara branch. on receipt of the charges, the petitioner submitted his reply denying the allegations. the matter was enquired by the inquiry officer and the inquiry officer submitted his report and inquiry officer, out of 21 charges held, 16 charges to be proved, 3 charges to be partly proved and 2 charges not proved. on receipt of the inquiry report the disciplinary authority passed the impugned order of punishment of dismissal from services vide order dated 09.12.2006. the petitioner.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....setting aside the order issued by the respondent no. 2 vide memo dated 07.02.2006 pertaining to dismissal from the services.2. sans details, the facts as disclosed in the writ application, in a nutshell is that while the petitioner was working as assistant at gamharia branch of the singhbhum central co-operative bank limited certain allegations were levelled against the petitioner and the petitioner was placed under suspension vide memo dated 26.10.04. manager audit of the bank was appointed as conducting officer. while the petitioner was under suspension the petitioner was served with a charge-sheet and the said charge-sheet related to fraudulent withdrawal from pay orders without crediting the pay orders. after superannuation of the conducting officer new conducting officer vide memo dated 07.09.05 was appointed. even after appointment of new conducting officer no notice whatsoever was issued to the petitioner fixing the date of inquiry in the said departmental proceeding. during these period the father of the petitioner was suffering from illness, so he went to patna to attend his father. subsequently, the petitioner came to know a notice had been 2 issued to his chaibasa.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT