Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
1. In the justice delivery system as regards the cardinal principle to dispense justice in functioning of the judiciary, the Apex Court in Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra The role of the judiciary to merely interpret and declare the law was the concept of a bygone age. It is no more open to debate as it is fairly settled that the courts can so mould and lay down formulating principles and guidelines as to adapt and adjust to the changing conditions of the society, the ultimate objective being to dispense justice. In the recent years there is a discernible shift in the approach of the final courts in favour of rendering justice on the facts presented before them, without abrogating but bypassing the principle of finality of the judgment.2. Judicial propriety insofar as judicial certainty is concerned, warrants following of a decision of the coordinate Bench, failing which, to refer it to a larger Bench. The Apex Court in Sub Inspector Rooplal and Ors. v. Lt. Governor through Chief Secr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2003(1)AWC739; (2003)1UPLBEC749
R.B. Mishra, J. 1. In this writ petition order dated 29.11.1997, passed by Sub-Divisional Officer/ Appointing and Punishing Authority, Garautha (Jhansi), has been challenged whereby the petitioner's service has been terminated on the ground that the petitioner was absent from duty, for less collection of revenue, depositing the revenue to the treasury without getting it verified by senior officer, not depositing the revenue timely to the treasury or for not depositing to the concerned man. Heard Sri Chandra Mohan Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri S.S. Sharma, additional chief standing counsel along with Sri Raj Kumar standing counsel for the respondents. 2. Brief fact necessary for adjudication of the present writ petition was that petitioner was suspended on 21.3.1996 and was served a charge-sheet on 5.9.1996 which was replied by the petitioner. An Enquiry Officer served a supplementary charge-sheet and the petitioner had again submitted his reply and thereafter t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1996Cal28,100CWN197
ORDER1. The petitioner in this application have, inter alia, questioned a notification dated 4-2-1994 issued by the Central Government in exercise of its power conferred upon it under Section 24(1) of the Mines Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act').2. The fact of the matter lies in a very narrow compass.The petitioner No. 1 is an Association of Officers of Coal Industries and the petitioner No. 2 is the General Secretary of the petitioner No. 1. The other petitioners are Officers of the New Kenda Colliery belonging to Eastern Coal Fields Ltd. An accident occurred in the said New Kenda Colliery as a result whereof 55 lives were lost on 25-1-1994. The impugned notification reads thus:--'Whereas an accident took place on 25th January, 1994 at New Kenda Colliery of Eastern Coal Fields, situate at Burdwan District in the State of West Bengal as result of which there has been loss of lives and properties. And whereas it is the opinion of the Central Government that there must...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be Yes allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Yes the Digest?ORDER.1. We preface our decision by noting the argument of learned counsel for the petitioners, being that so reprehensible is the conduct of the respondents, who have been caught literally with their pants down of accepting bribe that this Court ought to extend no benefit to the respondents. It was urged that law has to be interpreted, in the instant case, keeping in view the grave misdemeanour of the respondents. In other words, the counsel for the petitioners urged that the respondents are not entitled to any hearing. The argument is emotional and is rejected at the outset for the reason a system governed by the rule of law requires dispute resolution as per law. The submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners can be best repelled by noting a dialogue between Sir Thomas More on the one side an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
V. Kameswar Rao, J 1. The challenge in this writ petition by the State Bank of India, is to the recommendation/order/advice dated February 9, 2016 issued by the National Commission for Scheduled Castes, respondent No.1 directing the petitioner Bank to reconsider and re-examine the whole issue of penalty imposed upon the respondent No.2 by the Disciplinary Authority. 2. Some of the relevant facts as noted from the writ petition are, the respondent No.2 was posted at Faridabad Main Branch as Special Assistant on March 1, 2007. While he was working such, a surprise investigation was carried out in the Faridabad Main Branch by an investigating team. The investigating team submitted its report, wherein it inter-alia stated as under:- Later on one Shri Raj Kumar Shubh who was earlier posted at this branch and since transferred to CAC Faridabad at the 1st floor of the same building, entered the room a number of times trying apparently to help the staff to tally the cash ..so according to us a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the learned CIT(Appeals) dated 5-8-2004 relating to assessment year 1999-2000.2. The assessee has taken as many as 14 grounds in this appeal but at the time of hearing, the learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that ground Nos. 1 to 4 involving a purely legal issue relating to assumption of jurisdiction by the AO should be adjudicated first. The learned DR agreed for this course. Hence, we proceed to adjudicate ground Nos. 1 to 4 first. 1. That the provisions of Section 147/148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 are not applicable at all. 2. That the AO has no valid material to have any reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment Under Section 147 of the IT At and the reassessment made in furtherance of such invalid assumption of jurisdiction is invalid, non-est in law. 3. That there is no nexus between alleged material and the facts of the appellant's case and, therefore, the provisions of Section 147 are not ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1994)2GLR1234; (1994)IILLJ1234Guj
1. The only question which arises in these three petitions under Arts. 226 and 227 of the constitution of India filed by the Industrial Company is whether the Labour court had committed an error of law or jurisdiction by committing procedural irregularity in calling upon the employer to produce documentary and oral evidence in three reference cases relating to dismissal of the three workmen. The petitioner in all the three petitions is the same. Originally thirty-three references were made to the Labour court, Rajkot, under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act relating to dismissal of thirty-three workmen, but thirty disputes came to be settled or disposed of in accordance with law. 2(a) The workman Mahavirsinh Shivubha was a gardener in the garden department of the petitioner's factory and his services were terminated with effect from 25.1.1982, hence the dispute was referred to the Labour Court in Reference (LC) No. 958 of 1984. 2(b) The workman Raghu Arjan who was serving as T...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
B.P. Katakey, J. 1. The Government of Meghalaya in exercise of the power conferred by Section 3 of the Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952 (Act No. 60 of 1952) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), upon forming an opinion about the necessity to appoint a Commission of Inquiry for the purpose of making an inquiry into a definite matter of public importance, namely, relating to the incident of police firing occurred on 30th September, 2005 at Tura in West Garo Hills District resulting in the death of four persons besides injury to a number of civilian and police personnel, vide notification dated 3rd January, 2006 appointed Justice D.N. Chowdhury, retired Judge of Gauhati High Court to inquire into the said incident of police firing, as one man Commission, with the terms of reference contained therein. The said notification reads as follows:No. POL. 207/2005/28 - Whereas the Government of Meghalaya is of the opinion that it is necessary to appoint a Commission of Inquiry for the purpose o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Lucknow
Reported in : (2002)74TTJLuck976
This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of Commissioner (Appeals), dated 23-2-2000 relating to block assessment years 1988-89 to 1997-98.S.K. Garg, the learned counsel for the assessee appeared on behalf of the appellant-assessee, whereas D.K. Srivastava, learned Departmental Representative represented the department.The assessee took six grounds at the time of filing of the appeal.Through these grounds, the assessee has challenged various additions sustained by the Commissioner (Appeals). These grounds are elaborate and are argumentative in form and, therefore, it is not considered proper to reproduce the same in this order. However, we shall take the issues and additions involved in these grounds by referring to the grounds of appeal in relation to such issues/additions.The assessee filed a paper book on 11-2-2001, and inside this paper book on pages 1 and 2 as many as six grounds were taken. Ground No. 1 in the so-called grounds of appeal (as concised) was addi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Lucknow
1. This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A), dt. 23rd Feb., 2000 relating to block asst. yrs. 1988-89 to 1997-98.2. S. K. Garg, the learned counsel for the assessee appeared on behalf of the appellant-assessee, whereas D.K. Srivastava, learned Departmental Representative represented the Department.3. The assessee took six grounds at the time of filing of the appeal.Through these grounds, the assessee has challenged various additions sustained by the CIT(A). These grounds are elaborate and are argumentative in form and, therefore, it is not considered proper to reproduce the same in this order. However, we shall take the issues and additions involved in these grounds by referring to the grounds of appeal in relation to such issues/additions.4. The assessee filed a paper book on 11th Feb., 2001, and inside this paper book on pp. 1 and 2 as many as six grounds were taken. Ground No.1 in the so-called grounds of appeal (as concised) was additional grounds and...
Tag this Judgment!