Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (2003)IILLJ293Cal
Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyav, J.1. The petitioner bank filed this writ petition challenging the validity and/or legality of the award dated December 20, 1999 passed by the learned Judge of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal at Calcutta. By the said award, the learned Judge of the Tribunal held that the respondent Shri Chhabi Ghosh comes within the definition of workman under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the action of the management of the petitioner bank in terminating the service of said Shri Chhabi Ghosh was bad, illegal, inoperative and void ab initio. Accordingly, the learned Judge directed the petitioner bank to reinstate said Shri Chhabi Ghosh forthwith in service with full back wages from the date of termination along with all consequential benefits.2. Bereft of all unnecessary details, the facts of the matter are shortly narrated hereinafter.3. Shri Chhabi Ghosh, the respondent No. 3 herein was initially appointed as a clerical staff by the then M...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (i) Crl. Appeal not S-1244-SB of 2006 Date of Decision: July 04, 2013 Abbas ...Appellant VERSUS State of Haryana ...Respondent (ii) Crl. Appeal not S-1284-SB of 2006 Akhil ...Appellant VERSUS State of Haryana ...Respondent (iii) Crl. Appeal not S-1869-SB of 2011 Arshad ...Appellant VERSUS State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH Present: Mr.R.S.Mamli, Advocate Amicus Curiae for the appellant. (in CRA not S-1244-SB of 2006) Mr.Amandeep Saini, Advocate for the appellant (in CRA not S-1284-SB of 2006) Mr.R.S.Mamli, Advocate for the appellant (in CRA not S-1869-SB of 2011) Mr.Subhash Godara, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana for the respondent-State. **** INDERJIT SINGH, J. This judgment shall dispose of three connected criminal appeals i.e.CRA not S-1244-SB of 2006, CRA not S-1284-SB of 2006 arising out of the same judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13.06.2006 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1998)(101)ELT675TriDel
1. The above appeal arises out of the order dated 24-12-1996 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi by which he has confirmed a duty demand of Rs. 26,59,620/- on 850 Trollies, 4,710 Bins and 330 Pallets of iron and steel manufactured by the appellants during the period May, 1989 to March, 1992 through fabricators by supplying fabricated materials and imposed a penalty of an equal amount under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944.2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants supply raw material for the manufacture of the above mentioned three items which are in the nature of material handling equipment, to the following fabricators who fabricated the same in the appellants' premises : The appellants did not file any classification list or price list for these items nor did they maintain any statutory records for he same nor did they pay any Central Excise duty leviable thereon; hence a show cause notice date...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Affolder v. New York, Chicago & St.L. R. Co. - 339 U.S. 96 (1950) U.S. Supreme Court Affolder v. New York, Chicago & St.L. R. Co., 339 U.S. 96 (1950) Affolder v. New York, Chicago & St. Louis Railroad Co. No. 200 Argued November 18, 1949 Decided March 13, 1950 339 U.S. 96 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT Syllabus In this action again.st a railroad under the Safety Appliance Act and the Federal Employers' Liability Act, based on an alleged violation of the automatic coupler requirement of the Safety Appliance Act, it appeared from the evidence that the plaintiff, a switchman, lost a leg in his attempt to stop a string of moving cars which had separated from others after an earlier failure of two of them to couple on impact. The verdict of the jury and the judgment of the trial court were for the plaintiff. Held: 1. The issue of proximate cause was properly determined in favor of the plaintiff. Carter v. Atlanta & St. A. B. R. Co., 3...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 2007(218)ELT356(Del)
V.B. Gupta, J.1. Present appeal has been filed under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 against the order dated 25th July, 2003 passed by Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal( for short as Tribunal) in Appeal No. C/509/2002 NBC.2. The brief facts of the case are that on 28th October, 1999, the officers of Custom Department conducted a search of the godown belonging to the Appellant and Ball Bearings of foreign origin worth Rs. 1,11,76,250/- were recovered. Since the Appellant could not produce proof in respect of the lawful import/possession of the Ball Bearings, the same were taken into possession. In his statement, the Appellant stated that these Ball Bearings belonged to one Mr.Ram Niwas who sent them through transport company and gave the telephone number of the transport company. Enquiries were made from Ram Niwas who denied any relation with the Appellant. Further, enquiry was also made from the transporter who also denied that any consignment was delivered to the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : (1987)66CTR(Ker)231
Paripoornan, J. - At the instance of the revenue, the following two questions of law have been referred for the decision of this Court :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law and on facts in holding that agriculture itself is a business, running of rubber estate is certainly business and are not the above findings wrong and perverse 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, is not the assessee exigible to additional wealth-tax ?'2. The respondent in both these cases is an assessee to wealth-tax. She is an individual. She owns 32 acres of land. Out of the above 32 acres, 26 acres are covered by rubber plantations. In the other 6 acres, there are trees like mangoes, coconuts, etc. There was also a building used as residence and as an office of above the assessee. We are concerned with the asst. yrs. 1973-74 and 1974-75. The Government of India by notification dated 6-2-1973 included Edappally within the limits of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
F.A.O. No.4238 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH F.A.O.No.4238 of 2011 Date of decision:-12.08.2013 Geeta Devi and ors......Appellants Versus Ravinder Kumar and ors.......Respondents CORAM:HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK Present: Mr.Surender Saini, Advocate for the appellants. None for respondents no.1,2 and 4. Mr.Subhash Goyal,Advocate for respondent no.3. **** Vijender Singh Malik, J. This is an appeal brought by the claimants against the award dated 20.04.2011 vide which the claim petition of the appellants brought under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') has been dismissed by learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sonipat(for short 'the Tribunal').on the ground that they could not succeed in proving that the accident is an outcome of rash and negligent driving of dumper bearing registration not HR-69-8750 by respondent No.1-Ravinder Kumar. Kumar Dinesh 2013.08.16 11:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of thi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:30. h July 2018 Decided on:10. h August 2018 + SUNIL @ SONU STATE + CRL.A. 513/2017 ..... Appellant Through: Ms. Purnima, Advocate for Mr.Ajay Verma, Advocate. versus Through: Mr. Hirein Sharma, APP. ..... Respondent CRL.A. 1130/2016 NEERAJ MANN Through: Mr Rahul Sharma and Mr.AnreshKaushik, Advocates. ..... Appellant STATE + INDERJEET STATE + SUBHASH versus Through: Mr. Hirein Sharma, APP. ..... Respondent CRL.A. 158/2017 ..... Appellant Through: Ms. Saahila Lamba, Advocate. versus Through: Mr. Hirein Sharma, APP. ..... Respondent CRL.A. 583/2017 ..... Appellant Crl.A. 513/2017 & connected matters Page 1 of 23 Through: Ms. Purnima, Advocate for Mr. Ajay Verma, Advocate. versus STATE CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR Through: Mr. Hirein Sharma, APP. ..... Respondent JUSTICE VINOD GOEL JUDGMENT % Dr. S. Muralidhar, J.:1. These four appeals are directed against the judgment dated 24th August 2016 passed by the learned Additional Session...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:30. h July 2018 Decided on:10. h August 2018 + SUNIL @ SONU STATE + CRL.A. 513/2017 ..... Appellant Through: Ms. Purnima, Advocate for Mr.Ajay Verma, Advocate. versus Through: Mr. Hirein Sharma, APP. ..... Respondent CRL.A. 1130/2016 NEERAJ MANN Through: Mr Rahul Sharma and Mr.AnreshKaushik, Advocates. ..... Appellant STATE + INDERJEET STATE + SUBHASH versus Through: Mr. Hirein Sharma, APP. ..... Respondent CRL.A. 158/2017 ..... Appellant Through: Ms. Saahila Lamba, Advocate. versus Through: Mr. Hirein Sharma, APP. ..... Respondent CRL.A. 583/2017 ..... Appellant Crl.A. 513/2017 & connected matters Page 1 of 23 Through: Ms. Purnima, Advocate for Mr. Ajay Verma, Advocate. versus STATE CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR Through: Mr. Hirein Sharma, APP. ..... Respondent JUSTICE VINOD GOEL JUDGMENT % Dr. S. Muralidhar, J.:1. These four appeals are directed against the judgment dated 24th August 2016 passed by the learned Additional Session...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:30. h July 2018 Decided on:10. h August 2018 + SUNIL @ SONU STATE + CRL.A. 513/2017 ..... Appellant Through: Ms. Purnima, Advocate for Mr.Ajay Verma, Advocate. versus Through: Mr. Hirein Sharma, APP. ..... Respondent CRL.A. 1130/2016 NEERAJ MANN Through: Mr Rahul Sharma and Mr.AnreshKaushik, Advocates. ..... Appellant STATE + INDERJEET STATE + SUBHASH versus Through: Mr. Hirein Sharma, APP. ..... Respondent CRL.A. 158/2017 ..... Appellant Through: Ms. Saahila Lamba, Advocate. versus Through: Mr. Hirein Sharma, APP. ..... Respondent CRL.A. 583/2017 ..... Appellant Crl.A. 513/2017 & connected matters Page 1 of 23 Through: Ms. Purnima, Advocate for Mr. Ajay Verma, Advocate. versus STATE CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR Through: Mr. Hirein Sharma, APP. ..... Respondent JUSTICE VINOD GOEL JUDGMENT % Dr. S. Muralidhar, J.:1. These four appeals are directed against the judgment dated 24th August 2016 passed by the learned Additional Session...
Tag this Judgment!