Appropriation Railways No 5 Act 2005 Section 2 - Judgment Search Results

Sr.Divisional Personnel officer,pkd Vs. M.Swaminathan

Court: Kerala

..... the present petition under section 33c 2 was filed the railways objected to the same subsequently the claimants are said to have filed a w p c no 3458 of 2005 3 statement showing the ..... allegedly denied employment from 5 11 1983 onwards the claimants were before the appropriate government who referred the justifiability of denial of employment for adjudication under the act admittedly re instatement .....

Sr.Divisional Personnel officer,pkd Vs. M.Swaminathan

Court: Kerala

..... the present petition under section 33c 2 was filed the railways objected to the same subsequently the claimants are said to have filed a w p c no 3458 of 2005 3 statement showing the ..... allegedly denied employment from 5 11 1983 onwards the claimants were before the appropriate government who referred the justifiability of denial of employment for adjudication under the act admittedly re instatement .....

Commissioner of Central Excise, Mangalore Vs. M/S Bell-o-seal Valves P ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT

on appeal by the party upheld the demand and ordered appropriation of the service tax paid however he set aside the 2 nbsp the original authority disallowed the credit of rs 5 873 and education cess of rs 127 availed irregularly by he also imposed penalty under section 76 of the finance act 1994 the credit involved stands reversed by the respondent the availed irregularly by the respondent for the period from april 2005 to september 2005 and consequently confirmed the demand along with the demand along with interest he also imposed penalty under section 76 of the finance act 1994 the credit involved stands case of union of india vs ind swift laboratories ltd 2011 265 e l t 3 s c 4 after considering

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Leela Scottish Lace Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

rule 173q of the central excise rules 1944 and proposing appropriation of the amount of rs 4 00 000 rupees four 2005 demanding central excise duty amounting to rs 2 13 557 rupees two lakhs thirteen thousand five hundred fifty seven only the proviso to section 11a 1 of the central excise act 1944 read with rule 9 2 of the central excise act 1944 and issued show cause notice dated 31 05 2005 demanding central excise duty amounting to rs 2 13 557 of sub heading no 7006 90 under the proviso to section 11a 1 of the central excise act 1944 read with 31 05 2005 demanding central excise duty amounting to rs 2 13 557 rupees two lakhs thirteen thousand five hundred fifty

Sardarji Maganji Waghela Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Gujarat

Reported in: (2009)2GLR1399

..... exercise of powers under p o t a repeal act section 2 3 the opinion of the p o t a committee is also in paragraph no 39 and other paragraphs where other facets of the ..... or direction of an appropriate nature quashing the report dated 16 5 2005 passed by the review committee in f i r 1 9 of 2002 registered with godhara railway police station being annexure .....

Sandeep Soni vs.sanjay Roy & Ors.

Court: Delhi

..... railway corpn ltd v rani construction p ltd konkan railway corpn ltd v rani construction p ltd 2002 2 scc388 and orders under section 11 6 of the act ..... 2005 8 56 having said that this being one of the first cases on section 11 6 a of the 1996 act before this court i feel it appropriate ..... hyundai engineering and construction co ltd ors civil appeal no 8146 of 2018 dated 21 08 2018 17 1 this judgment has .....

J. John Wincent Vs. the Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2006)4MLJ108

..... set procedure given in section 47 2 of the act is followed viz provided that the appropriate government may having ..... group b post by the management of western railway the division bench of the delhi high court ..... application before the tribunal in o a no 136 of 2005 the tribunal taking note of the fact ..... tribunal and supported the view of the tribunal 5 the short but core point for consideration in .....

H.R.T.C. and ors. Vs. Rajinder Kumar

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: 2007(3)ShimLC96

2 a and the fact that actual embezzlement or mis appropriation was not proved while holding that the penalty imposed upon 11542 dated 28 2 1998 as per rule and regulations 5 the workman besides taking the above noted plea has also taking up simultaneously other issues for decision this course of action is not available to a court because sub rule 1 the labour court cum industrial tribunal dharamshala dated 23 4 2005 is upheld and this petition is dismissed with costs quantified consideration the previous record of the petitioner and as per section 11 a of the industrial disputes act 1947 has come of the petitioner after careful consideration and the order dated 28 8 1999 passed by the respondent no 2 are legal

Shardaprasad Onkarprasad Tiwari and ors. Vs. Central Railway (Division ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (1960)ILLJ167Bom

giving effect to them subsidiary rule 4 reads as follows appropriate disciplinary action can be taken by the administration against railway in the first instance the order passed under s 132 5 is an order of a summary nature and does not misconduct within the meaning of rule 1706 in law even acts done by a servant outside working hours and outside the serious misconduct the governor general has made rules under sub section 2 of s 241 of the government of india act petitioners 1 and 2 does not amount to serious misconduct 20 the petition filed by petitioners 1 and 2 will therefore

Visakhapatnam Port Trust and Another Vs. M/S. Ram Bahadur Thakur Pvt. ...

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: AIR1997SC1057; JT1997(2)SC599; 1997(2)SCALE111; (1997)4SCC582

act was required to consider the question regarding fixing of appropriate handling charges after giving notice to the writ petitioners and in the port and intended for carriage by the neighbouring railways or vice versa as a railway administration under the indian the central government in exercise of its power under section 54 1 may pass appropriate orders modifying or canceling the sanctioned by the board once that happened section 52 of the act directly got attracted because the scale of rates at rs in the facts and circumstances of the case civil charges sections 53 and 54 of major port trusts act 1963 approved ore as fixed by the board s impugned resolution dated 26th june 1986 were required to be sanctioned by the central