Tribunal Court April 2014 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Sujan Singh, Bangalore Vs. Government of India Ministry of Home Affair ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Apr-04-2014
(Oral), Syed Rafat Alam, Chairman, J. 1. At the outset, a preliminary objection is taken on behalf of the respondents about the maintainability of this Application before the Tribunal on the ground that the applicant belongs to the combatized service of Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB) and is working as Assistant Commandant (Medical Officer) and thus, this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the grievance of the applicant pertaining to his service conditions under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.2. We have heard learned counsel for applicant and respondents and considered the objections raised on behalf of the respondents regarding maintainability of this Application before the Tribunal. This issue has already been dealt with by this very Bench in OA No.2055/2012 with connected OA No.3322/2012 vide order dated 13.09.2013, wherein we have held as under:- "32. No doubt that the post of DIG is a Combatized (GD) post, but the fact remains that this issue has to be cons...
Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Ltd., and Another Vs. Gujarat Electricity ...
Court: Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL Appellate Jurisdiction
Decided on: Apr-04-2014
Surendra Kumar, Judicial Member. 1. This is an appeal under Section 111 of the Electricity Act, 2003, filed by the appellants against the Order dated 19.01.2013 passed by the Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission (hereinafter called the State Commission), in Petition No. 1222 of 2012 whereby the State Commission has allowed the petition filed by the Shaifali Rolls Ltd, challenging the levy of Parallel Operation Charges (POC). The Parallel Operation Charges (POC) had been charged by the appellants on the basis of the undertaking given by the respondent no 2. Shaifali Rolls Ltd. The State Commission, by the impugned order, has held the Parallel Operation Charges levied by the appellants as illegal and invalid and has also held that the claim of the appellants before September, 2008 is barred by limitation. 2. The facts of the case giving rise to this appeal are as follows:- 2.1 that the appellant no. 1, Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Ltd, is a company owned and controlled by the Governm...
M/S. Chimanlal Shantilal Shah and Others Vs. Cst Ahmedabad
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad
Decided on: Apr-04-2014
M.V. Ravindran, J. 1. Since all these appeals raised a common issue, these are being disposed of by a common order. 2. Heard both sides and perused the records. 3. The issue involved in these cases is regarding the Service Tax liability on renting of immovable property by all the appellants during the period April 2009 to September 2009. 4. Ld. Chartered Accountant appearing on behalf of all the appellants submit that the appellant had paid the full amount of Service Tax liability along with interest during the pendency of the proceedings before the first appellate authority. It is also his submission that the appellants are covered by the retrospective amendment made by the Central Government of India to Section 80 of Finance Act, 1994 which talks about the granting/setting aside of the penalty imposed under the category of renting of immovable property service. 5. I find strong force in the contentions raised by the ld. Chartered Accountant and also note that the ld.D.R. is not dispu...
Ex Spr. V.P. Thankachan Vs. Union of India, Represented by Secretary a ...
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Kochi
Decided on: Apr-04-2014
Shrikant Tripathi, Member (J): 1. Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. The instant matter has been received on remand from the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala vide its order dated 15th January 2014 in O.P.(AFT)No.01 of 2014(Z). 3. As per the record, The applicant, Ex Sapper, V.P.Thankachan, No.1354891 claims disability pension with effect from the date of his discharge. He was enrolled in the Indian Army on 31st July 1971. During the service he developed a psychic problem, so he was examined by the Invaliding Medical Board which diagnosed that he was suffering from the disability Neurosis (Anxiety) and assessed the same at 40% for life. He was accordingly medically boarded out of the service on 7th of December 1980. As the applicant had rendered only 9 years and 98 days service, he was found ineligible for the service pension because the minimum requisite qualified service to earn service pension was 15 years at that point of time. The applicant, however, set up a ...
M/S. Cp Aqua Culture India P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (import ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Apr-04-2014
1. The appellant is a 100% EOU. They exported Shrimps under the cover of 78 Shipping Bills in the year 2001 02 and paid cess under the Agricultural Produce Cess Act, 1940. The appellants were not aware that Notification No. 451/2001 dated 30.6.2001 exempted payment of cess on export of marine products by the EOUs and the units in the Export Processing Zones and Special Economic Zones. The appellant filed refund claim on 29.4.2004 for refund of Rs.32,97,617/- against the 78 Shipping Bills. The adjudicating authority rejected the refund claim on the ground that the refund claim is hit by limitation under Section 27(1)(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 and also on the ground of unjust enrichment. By the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the adjudication order and rejected appeal filed by the appellant. 2. The learned counsel on behalf of the appellant fairly submits that there is a subsequent development in this matter insofar as the Honble Madras High Court and the Tribunal he...
Uttam Singh (Tgt-hindi, Delhi and Others Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi Thr ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Apr-04-2014
Shekhar Agarwal, Member (A). 1. This Review Application has been filed by the applicants of OA-657/2012 for review of our order dated 10.01.2013. This review application has been filed mainly on two grounds each of which is discussed as hereunder:- The first ground taken by the review applicants is that while passing the aforesaid order this Tribunal had lost sight of the manner in which pay fixation was done in the Ministry of Agriculture, which was specifically relied upon by the review applicants. We notice from our judgment that there is no mention of the pay fixation done in the Ministry of Agriculture. It, therefore, appears that there is force in the contention of the review applicants that this issue had escaped our attention while delivering the aforesaid judgment. The second ground taken by the review applicants is that this Tribunal had agreed that anomaly existed in pay fixation of teachers inasmuch as the teachers appointed on or after 01.01.2006 were getting more pay then...
M/S. Doshion Veolia Water Solutions Pvt. Ltd Vs. C.S.T. Service Tax, A ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad
Decided on: Apr-04-2014
M.V. Ravindran, J. 1. This appeal is directed against OIA No. 40/2012(STC)/K.ANPAZHAKAN/Commr.(A)/Ahd, dt. 27.01.2012. 2. Heard both sides and perused the case records. 3. On perusal of the records, it transpires that for the month of November 2005 appellant had provided services to their client and received payment on which service tax liability was not discharged. This was noticed by the audit officers and the show cause notice was issued on 01.09.2008. In the first round of litigation, the matter was remanded by to the adjudicating authority by the first appellate authority. In the second round of litigation, the adjudicating authority again confirmed the demands raised alongwith interest and also imposed penalties under Sections 76, 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellant contested the matter before the first appellate authority unsuccessfully. 4. On perusal of the records, I find that for the month of November 2005 the appellant had collected the service tax leviable on ...
Shirish Barve Vs. the Union of India, Through : the Ministry of Road T ...
Court: National Green Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Apr-04-2014
1. The Applicants have filed the present Application under Section 14, 15, 17 and 18 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, basically challenging the proposed Jalgaon bypass road of the National Highway No.6 which has been proposed by Respondent No.2 i.e. National Highway Authority of India (NHAI). The Applicants claim that the present Application has been filed to salvage the high fertile and productive land from the proposed bypass road which is not required and this unnecessary proposal of having a by-pass which would create livelihood problems for (J) Application No.38/2013 2 many farmers and change in land use thereby affecting the environment. 2. The Respondent No.1 is the Ministry of Road Transport and Highway, Government of India, New Delhi which is controlling the National Highways in the country, Respondent No.2 is the National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) which is planning and executing the said project, Respondent No.3 is the Collector of Jalgaon who is acquiring th...
Ashika Stock Broking Limited Vs. Bombay Stock Exchange Ltd. and Anothe ...
Court: SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT
Decided on: Apr-03-2014
J.P. Devadhar, Presiding Officer (Oral) 1. This appeal is filed to challenge order passed by Respondents on October 25, 2013. Since appellant has made a grievance that the impugned order is violative of the principles of natural justice, learned senior counsel for respondents states that the impugned order may be remanded for passing fresh order in accordance with law. 2. Accordingly, impugned order dated October 25, 2013 is quashed and set aside and the matter is restored to the file of respondents. Respondents are directed to pass fresh order on merits and in accordance with law after giving personal hearing to the appellant as early as possible and preferably within four months from today. 3. Appeal is disposed of in above terms with no order as to costs....
Co-ordination Committee of Artist and Technicians of West Bengal Film ...
Court: Competition Appellate Tribunal
Decided on: Apr-03-2014
V.S. SIRPURKAR, CHAIRMAN: 1. In this Appeal, the majority order passed by the Competition Commission of India (in short the "CCI") is in challenge. The operative order passed by the CCI is as under "8.4 The Commission also directs the OP-1 and OP-2 to 'cease and desist' from the following practices and take suitable measures to modify or remove them from their articles of association, rules and regulations; i) The existing rules of Eastern India Motion Picture Association, OP-1 on dubbing must be dispensed with and there should be no bar or prohibition on exhibition of dubbed films or serials produced in any language in the areas under its control. ii) The Co-ordination Committee of Artist and Technicians of West Bengal Film and Television Industry should not impose any restrictions in any manner on distribution and exhibition of the Films or TV serials in the areas under its control." 2. The said order was passed by the CCI, having found the original OP-1 and OP-2 guilty of breach of ...
- ‹ Prev
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- Next ›
- Last »