Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2007(2)WLN31
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff non-petitioner filed a suit foreviction against petitioners under the provisions of Rajasthan Rent ControlAct, 2001. The defendant petitioner submitted an application under Order 7Rule 11 C.P.C. and prayed that since no notice under Section 80 C.P.C. has beenserved by the plaintiff upon the Union of India, as required by the mandatoryprovisions of law, therefore, petition filed by the non-petitioner for evictionof the petitioners non-applicants before the Tribunal deserves to be rejected. The Tribunal vide order dt. 18.09.2006 after relying upon judgment of theBombay High Court 2006 AIH 2024 Food Corporation of India v. Union of India and Anr. held that petition filed under Rent Control Act is not governedby the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure and it is not mandatory tofollow the procedure provided by the Code of Civil Procedure, therefore,the petition filed by the non-petition...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1999)LC407Tri(Delhi)
1. In this Appeal filed by M/s. Khoday Engg. Ltd. the issue involved is whether an order issued under Section 5A(2) of the Central Excise Act is applicable to the goods manufactured and cleared before issue of the order.2. Shri Prasanth Kumar, Id. Counsel submitted that they had entered into a contract with Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board for providing, laying and commissioning of Reservoir. For this purpose they had fabricated pipes from the raw materials supplied by M/s. BWSSB. The Central Government vide Order No. 6/91, dated 22-2-1991 issued under Section 5A(2) of Central Excise Act exempted all excisable goods falling under Chapter 68 or 73 fabricated at the fabrication shop of M/s. Khoday Engineering Works which are required by and supplied to Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board in connection with the execution of the Cauvery Water Supply Scheme from the whole of duty of excise. He submitted that the Commissioner has confirmed the demand of duty holding that the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:16. hJanuary , 2019 Pronounced on:11th February,2019 W.P.(C) 6222/2002 & CM No.10600/2002 SURENDRA PAL SINGH ........ Petitioner UOI & ORS. Through:... Petitioner in person. versus Through: Mr. Rajan Sabharwal, Standing ........ RESPONDENTS Counsel. CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA JUDGMENT SANJEEV NARULA, J1 The... Petitioner, who superannuated from the services of the Railway Protection Force (RPF) inter-alia seeks a writ of mandamus for granting ante-dated promotion to the post of Assistant Security Officer (ASO) and consequential benefits arising therefrom. Factual Background 2. The writ petition has reference to several other writ petitions and it transpires that the... Petitioner has been engaging in litigation with the Respondent - RPF since 1975 and as yet there is no effective conclusion to his grievances. W.P.(C) 6222/2002 Page 1 of 21 3. The... Petitioner joined the RPF as Prosecuting Inspector in the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [2005(105)FLR665]; ILR2005KAR1496; 2005(2)KarLJ527; (2005)IILLJ980Kant
ORDERH.N. Nagamohan Das, J.1. In this petition, the petitioner has called in question the award dated 30.7.1999 in ID.No. 2/93 passed by the Industrial Tribunal at Bangalore,2. Petitioner is engaged in the manufacture of ayurvedic medicines. Upto 1993, the petitioner entered into settlements on wage structure and other service conditions of workmen with Bangalore Mazdoor Sangh (hereinafter called the 'Sangha') which was the recognised Union and the last settlement was signed on 18.4.1990. This settlement was to expire on 30.10.1992. In 1992, a section of the workers formed respondent-Union (hereinafter called the 'Union'). Thus by October 1992, there came to be two groups i.e., the Sangha and the respondent-Union.3. The Union submitted a charter of demands on 30.10.1992 and on 7.12.1992. The petitioner did not consider the demands of Union and the matter was taken to conciliation. During the pendency of conciliation proceedings, the petitioner entered into a settlement with the Sangha ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1982Cal96
ORDERSalil Kumar Roy Chowdhury, J.1. This is an application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, for filing the arbitration agreement dated 18th/23rd of Oct., 1979 and for order of reference of the dispute to the Arbitrator in terms of the arbitration agreement and consequential reliefs.2. By a letter dated 19th/23rd of Oct. 1979, the plaintiff/petitioner appointed the defendant/respondent purely on a temporary basis for a period of three months as the Clearing Agent at Calcutta for clearance of imported cargo improvement and local transportation jobs and other related items of works as set out in the said letter and also in paragraph 3 and sub-paragraphs thereof in the petition. Pursuant to the said agreement the defendant/respondent and the plaintiff/petitioner started acting as only Clearing Agent of the Calcutta Port on and from 1st of Nov. 1979, till 15th of Dec. 1980 as the terms were extended from time to time. During the period the defendant/respondent acted as the Cl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chandigarh
Reported in : (1984)8ITD667(Chd.)
1. This is an appeal directed against the order dated 27-3-1982 passed by the competent authority being the IAC, made under Section 269F(6) of ths Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). The impugned order is in respect of an agricultural land measuring 69 kanals 16 marlas along with house building therein situated in village Badrukhan, District Sangrur. The aforesaid property belonged to HUF of Major Tikka Khushwant Singh and the same was sold by him to Swaraj Spinning Mills Ltd., a public limited company, incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at Singla Niwas, Shahi Samadhan, Patiala. The property in question was sold vide three different registered sale deed Nos. (i) 1653 on 29-10-1974; (n) 1663 on 31-10-1974; and (ii) 1719 on 11-11-1974. As per each sale deed, one third share in the property in question was sold for a sum of Rs. 49,000 each. In other words, the entire property was sold for a total sum of Rs. 1,47,000. The impugned order shows that the c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
G. George Paracken, Member (J). 1. The Applicant in this Original Application has challenged the Memorandum No.VIII (12) ACE/CIU/Newsprint/Ritu/109/2012, No.23/2012 dated 04.12.2012 on various grounds. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the Applicant, while working as an Inspector in Central Excise and Customs (œCEC? for short) from 01.05.2004 to 31.12.2004, was entrusted with the responsibility of examination of imported goods. Later, vide letter dated 20.10.2009, Assistant Commissioner (Vigilance) directed her to present herself before him to record her statement with regard to some of the Bills of Entry pertaining to the year 2004. In the statement recorded on 04.11.2009, she has stated that she had examined the goods covered by those Bills but she has also informed the officer concerned that she could confirm those bills only after seeking their handwritten copies. Thereafter, the Applicant sought information under Right to Information Act, 2005 and the Respondents, vide...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2005(5)KarLJ540; (2005)IIILLJ772Kant
ORDERB.S. Patil, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 13-1-1998 passed by the Disciplinary Authority removing the petitioner from service and the order of the Appellate Authority dated 12-5-1998 rejecting the appeal and confirming the penalty imposed.2. Petitioner is an officer of the respondent-Bank who has retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31-10-1995. On certain allegations of misconduct, just prior to the date of retirement, the petitioner was placed under suspension by order dated 7-10-1995. A charge-sheet dated 30-10-1995 alleging that the petitioner has committed certain acts of misconduct was served on him on 31-10-1995. The charges pertained to several acts of omission and commission on the part of the petitioner while working as Chief Manager of the Jayanagar 5th Block Branch, Bangalore. An additional charge-sheet dated 31-10-1995 came to be issued which was served on the petitioner on 3-11-1995. The additional ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2009KAR2789:2009(4)KCCRSN220:2009(6)AIRKarR206:(D.B)
1. These writ petitions are filed by the petitioner seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to issue mining lease for the respective areas applied under six different applications, pursuant to the notification dated 15th March, 2003 issued under Rule 59(1) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 (for short 'MC Rules') as referred to hereunder:-----------------------------------------------------------------------------Sl. No Date AML Location NotificationBlockand SI. No.-----------------------------------------------------------------------------1 3-5-2005 594 AML 05 Karthikeshwar Sl. No. 13/1B. No.-----------------------------------------------------------------------------2 3-5-2005 497 AML 05 Karthikeshwar Sl. No. 13/1B. No.-----------------------------------------------------------------------------3 8-9-2006 834 AML 06 Donimalai Sl. No. 12-----------------------------------------------------------------------------4 8-9-2006 835 AML 06 Donimalai Sl. No. 11--------------...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1998)2CALLT453(HC)
R. Pal, J.1. This appeal has been preferred from an order dated 15th January 1992 directing the filing of an agreement under section 20(1) of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). According to the appellant, the court lacked the territorial Jurisdiction either to entertain the application under section 20 or to pass any order thereon.2. According to the appellant only the court having jurisdiction with respect to the subject matter of the agreement could entertain an application under section 20 of the Act. It is stated that the agreement had been executed in Bihar. The entire work and/or transaction had been carried onunder the agreement in Bihar and that no part of the cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of this court it is submitted that as the subject matter of the agreement had taken place wholly outside the jurisdiction of this court, the order under appeal was passed without Jurisdiction. The appellants have relied upon M. Venkatosamlappa...
Tag this Judgment!