Tribunal Court April 2014 Judgments
Jayshree Dansena, Chhattisgarh Vs. M/S Athena Chhattisgarh Power Priva ...
Court: National Green Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Apr-30-2014
Dalip Singh, Judicial Member: 1. This application has been filed under section 18 read with Section 14 and Section 15 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 with the following prayer. This application is moved for the purpose of protecting lives and health of the people of the villages Singhitarai, Katharrapali, Singhitarai, Nimuhi, Odekera, District “Janjgir “ Champa and to make villages free from pollution and unless suitable orders have passed by this Honble Tribunal it would endanger the lives of the people of the villages. A. Applicant prays your Lordship for an order or direction upon the respondent no. 1 to stop the dynamite blasting at project site Gram Singhitarai. B. Applicant prays your Lordship for an order or direction to construct the damage wall of School and houses in Gram- Singhitarai. C. Applicant prays your Lordship for an order or direction to provide sanitation arrangements for the drivers and other contract workers. D. Applicant prays your Lordship f...
Tag this Judgment!Gulab Meena, Rajasthan and Another Vs. State of Rajasthan Through the ...
Court: National Green Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Apr-30-2014
(NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL CENTRAL ZONAL BENCH, BHOPAL) Dalip Singh, Judicial Member: 1. Heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. Original Application No. 130/2013 came to be transferred after D.B. Civil Writ Petition (PIL) No. 13683/2012 was transferred by the Honble High Court of Rajasthan Bench at Jaipur to this Tribunal vide its order dtd. 23.09.2013. 2. In the petition it has been stated that Khasra No. 235 measuring 346 Bigha situated in Village Kishorepura, Tehsil Sapotra, District Karauli in Rajasthan is a forest land for which in Annexure-I the Land Revenue Record (Jamabandi) has been filed in support thereof which shows that Khasra No. 235 measuring 346 Bigha stands in the name of the Forest Department. 3. It is alleged that the aforesaid Khasra No. 235 has been encroached upon by certain persons by name Shri Ramesh, Mukesh, Mahesh and Dinesh to the extent of 150 Bigha. The villagers objected to the same and even filed a complaint before the Dy. Collect...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Noida Software Technology Park Ltd., Vs. M/O Information and Broa ...
Court: Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal TDSAT
Decided on: Apr-30-2014
Kuldip Singh: 1. The petitioner seeks an appropriate direction to respondent no. 1, The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India to de-endorse the channel of 2respondent No.2 - M/s. Sindhi Kachchhi Entertainment Corporation Limited from the list of channels permitted to be up-linked by the petitioner through its teleport using INSAT 4-A Satellite. A prayer, inter-alia, is also made for direction to respondent No.1 to dispose of applications seeking de-endorsement of TV channels in a time bound manner. 2. The petitioner is engaged in the business of providing up-linking facility and transponder service to the broadcasters and has been granted a license on 24.01.2003 under Section 4 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 to establish, maintain and operate the up-inking hub (teleport). It has also obtained license from WPC (Wireless Planning and Coordination), Department of Telecommunications. It is operating the teleport as permitted by respondent No.1 vide its letter bea...
Tag this Judgment!Dushyant N. Dalal and Another Vs. Securities and Exchange Board of Ind ...
Court: SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT
Decided on: Apr-29-2014
J.P. Devadhar, Presiding Officer (Oral) 1. In our order passed in Appeal No. 199 of 2013 on January 17, 2014 we had directed the appellant to file fresh application within two weeks from that day and on such an application being filed, Securities and Exchange Board of India (œSEBI? for short) shall consider the said application within a period of six weeks thereafter. 2. It appears that the appellant filed application on February 12, 2014 which was delayed by nine days. By a communication dated March 21, 2014 the application made by the appellant has been rejected on the ground that the same is filed beyond the time prescribed in our order dated January 17, 2014. Challenging the communication dated March 21, 2014 present appeal is filed. 3. Although, no fault can be found with the decision of SEBI in rejecting the application which was filed beyond the time specified in our order dated January 17, 2014, in our opinion in the interest of justice, it would be just and proper to con...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Yesh Lami Print Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce Ahmedabad Ii
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad
Decided on: Apr-29-2014
M.V. Ravindran, J. 1. When this Stay Petition was called out, we find that the appeal itself can be disposed of at this juncture. Hence, after disposing the Stay Petition, we take up the appeal for disposal. 2. After hearing both sides, we find that the issue is regarding clandestine removal of the goods. The lower authorities have confirmed the demand along with interest and have also imposed equivalent amount of penalty under Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944. 3. We find from the records that appellant is not contesting the duty liability and interest thereof, but is contesting imposition of penalty, which according to him should be 25% of the duty liability extending the benefit of Section 11AC to them. 4. On perusal of the records, we are of the view that the adjudicating authority while confirming the demand along with interest against the appellant, has not extended the benefit of provisions of Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944 for paying 25% of the duty towards pen...
Tag this Judgment!G. Suresh Vs. Securities and Exchange Board of India Sebi Bhavan
Court: SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT
Decided on: Apr-29-2014
Jog Singh, Member 1. This Appeal has been filed under Section 15T of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (SEBI Act) against the impugned order dated December 17, 2013 passed by Adjudicating Officer of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) imposing a penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/- on the Appellant under Section 15A(b) of SEBI Act. The appellant has been found guilty of violating the provisions of Regulations 13(4) read with Regulation 13(5) of the SEBI (Prohibition of Insider Trading) Regulations, 1992 (PIT Regulations) and Regulation 7(1) read with Regulation 7(2) of the SEBI (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers) Regulations, 1997 (SAST Regulations). 2. The Appellant is Managing Director of CG-Vak Software and Exports Ltd. (the Company). Shares of the Company are listed on the both Bombay Stock Exchange (BSE) and Coimbatore Stock Exchange (CSE). The Respondent received an examination report from the BSE which, inter alia, revealed that the Appellant ...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Gujarat State Fertilizers and Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Cce Vadodara-i
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad
Decided on: Apr-29-2014
M.V. Ravindran, J. 1. When this Stay Petition was called, we find that the appeal itself could be disposed of at this juncture as the issue lies in narrow compass, in as much as the first appellate authority has dismissed the appeal only for non-compliance of pre-deposit ordered by him. We dispose of the Stay Petition and take up the appeal for disposal. 2. Heard both sides and perused the records. 3. The first appellate authority has directed the appellant to deposit an amount of Rs.20 lakhs for hearing and disposing the appeal which is directed against the confirmation of demand on the ground that appellant has availed in-eligible CENVAT Credit on the various input services. Prima facie, on perusal of the said services on which credit was availed, we find that many of the services could not have been denied to them while at least two services are in a doubtful category which could not have been used by the appellant. 4. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, we are...
Tag this Judgment!Shree Cement Limited Vs. Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission V ...
Court: Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL Appellate Jurisdiction
Decided on: Apr-29-2014
Surendra Kumar, Judicial Member. 1. This is an appeal under Section 111 of the Electricity Act, 2003, filed by the appellant against the Order dated 06.06.2013, passed by the Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission (hereinafter called the State Commission) in Petition No.356-358 of 2012, filed by the distribution licensees (respondents herein) wherein the State Commission had allowed petitions filed by the respondents and determined the Annual Revenue Requirements (ARR) and Revision of Retail Tariff for FY 2013-14 including the changes made for the determination of time block for maximum demand in a special manner for open access customers. 2. Thus the State Commission by the impugned order has permitted the respondents/petitioners to change the time block for recording maximum demand for open access consumers to 15 minutes instead of 30 minutes in their tariff booklet. The appellant is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 06.06.2013 due to the following aspects: (i) that the Stat...
Tag this Judgment!Dilip, Yawatmal Vs. the Union of India, Through Its Secretary, New Del ...
Court: National Green Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Apr-29-2014
(THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL (WESTERN ZONE) BENCH, PUNE ) 1. The present Application was originally filed as Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No.14 of 2013, in the Honble High Court of Bombay, Bench at Nagpur, which was transferred to this Tribunal vide order dated September19th, 2013. The present Application has raised three important issues namely; (i) improper loading/unloading of coal in the Railway siding at Wani Railway Station, (ii) unscientific activity of storage of coal in Lalpuriya area of Wani by the Respondent Nos.10 to 12, and (iii) air pollution in the area of Wani Tahsil, including Wani town, due to improper activities of excavation, transportation and loading/unloading of coal. The Applicant alleges that there is serious increase in the air pollution as well as water pollution due to above activities and there is serious impact on health of the residents of Wani area and also, there are serious impacts on the road infrastructure and agriculture. 2. The Applicant submit...
Tag this Judgment!Cce, Chennai - Iv Vs. M/S. Invensys India Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-2014
1. Revenue filed this appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the adjudication order was set aside and the appeal filed by the respondent was allowed. 2. Heard both sides and perused the records. 3. The respondents were engaged in the manufacture of dutiable and exempted goods. They have not maintained separate accounts in respect of inputs meant for used in the manufacture of dutiable goods and exempted goods. They paid 10% on the value of total price of exempted final product in terms of Rule 6(3)(b) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002 and collected the same from their customers. A show-cause notice dated 22.5.2007 was issued proposing the demand of an amount of Rs.12,54,998/- in the month of December 2004 under Section 11D of Central Excise Act, 1944 along with interest and penalty. Adjudicating authority confirmed the amount of Rs.12,54,998/- along with interest and imposed a penalty of Rs.10,000/- under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Commissioner (Appea...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »