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.
Etisalat Db Telecom (P) Ltd and Another Vs. Union of India
Court: Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal TDSAT
Decided on: Apr-03-2014
Aftab Alam, Chairperson. M/s Unitech Wireless Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Etisalat D. B. Telecom Pvt. Ltd. have approached the Tribunal seeking a direction to the Central Government in the Department of Telecommunication (DoT) to release the œperformance bank guarantees? submitted by them as stipulated in clause 21 of the Unified Access Service licences granted to them by the Union of India under section 4 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. Unitech has filed twenty petitions (Petition nos.700 to 719 of 2012) in respect of the twenty different service areas/circles for which the performance bank guarantees were furnished by it. Etisalat has filed four petitions (Petition nos. 658, 659, 672 and 722 of 2012) in respect of the four different service areas/circles to which the bank guarantees sought to be released pertain. The DoT does not deny that with the possible exception of one of the circles, namely West Bengal, it has no claim of any liquidated damages against Unitech for non-performanc...
Dr. B.K. Mittal, New Delhi and Others Vs. Ministry of Railways Through ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Apr-02-2014
Sh. Shekher Agarwal, Member (A). 1. The issue in this O.A. is whether the benefit of the Scheme of Non-Functional Up-gradation (NFU) should be extended to the officers of Indian Railway Medical Service (IRMS) or not. Pursuant to the recommendations of Sixth Central Pay Commission (CPC), the Department of Personnel and Training vide their O.M. dated 24.04.2009 introduced a Scheme of NFU in which it was provided that whenever an officer of IAS is posted at a Centre to a particular grade carrying a specific grade pay in Pay Band-3 or Pay Band-4, the officers belonging to batches of Organised Group-A Services that are senior by two years or more and have not so far been promoted to that grade would be granted the same grade on non-functional basis. While this Scheme has been implemented for other Organised Group-A services, it has been denied to Indian Railway Medical Service on the ground that they are already covered under Dynamic Assured Career Progression Scheme. The contention of the ...
M/S. Saint GobaIn Glass India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Apr-02-2014
1. Appellant filed this appeal against Order-in-Appeal No.7/2006 (M-IV), dated 31.01.2006. By the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the demand of duty on merit, but, revised the penalty imposed under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Revenue filed appeal against modification of the amount of penalty, which was decided by the Tribunal vide Final Order No.40151/2014, dated 24.02.2014, whereby the impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded back to Commissioner (Appeals) for deciding the matter afresh in respect of imposition of penalty under Section 11AC. The present appeal is filed by the appellant against the same order against the demand of duty along with interest and the penalty. 2. After considering the submissions of both sides, I find that the Tribunal in its Final Order dated 24.02.2014 set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh decision. I find that the assessees appeal was not drawn to the a...
M/S. Hi Tech Carbon Vs. Uttar Pradesh Electricity Regulatory and Other ...
Court: Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL Appellate Jurisdiction
Decided on: Apr-02-2014
Rakesh Nath, Technical Member. M/s. High Tech Carbon, a manufacturer of Carbon Black has filed this Appeal challenging the order of Uttar Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission dated 13.3.2013 determining the tariff in respect of power supplied to the distribution licensee from their co-generation plant. 2. The Appellant is a manufacturer of Carbon Black. During the manufacturing process waste heat is generated and the same is used for generation of steam and electricity and as such it is a cogeneration plant. The electricity generated at the cogeneration plant is partially consumed in captive use and the surplus is supplied to Purvanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., the distribution licensee and the third Respondent herein. The State Commission is the first Respondent. UPPCL is the second Respondent. 3. The brief facts of the case are as under: A) The State Commission framed Regulations regarding terms and conditions for supply of power and fixation of tariff for sale of power from ca...
Utkarsh Hiring Services Vs. C.C.E. and S.T. Daman
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad
Decided on: Apr-02-2014
M.V. Ravindran, J. 1. When this stay petition was called out, Ld. Counsel submits that approximately Rs.2,00,000/- stands deposited with the lower authorities as against confirmed demand of service tax liability of Rs.4.57 lakhs, interest thereof and penalties under various sections. It is his submission that the matter needs reconsideration by the adjudicating authority as the appellant was not represented and nor the appellant knows what are relied upon documents on which demands have been raised. He draws our attention to show cause notice for this proposition. 2. Heard the Ld. Departmental Representative. 3. On perusal of the records, we do find that the appeal itself could be disposed of at this juncture by way of remand to adjudicating authority accordingly considering the deposits made by the appellant, we allow the stay petition for waiver of the balance amounts involved and take up the appeal for disposal. 4. On perusal of the records, we do find substance in the Ld. Counsels ...
Rishi Raj, Delhi and Others Vs. Union of India the Secretary and Other ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Apr-02-2014
Shekhar Agarwal, Member (A). 1. The issue in this case is whether on first financial upgradation under the ACP Scheme the applicants should get the pay scale of Rs.4500-7000, which is the pay scale of Technician or the pay scale of Rs. 3050-5490, which is the pay scale of LDC. The respondents have granted them the latter. Aggrieved by the decision of the respondents, they have filed this O.A. before us. The applicants are also seeking direction to the respondents to re-designate them as Broadcast Assistants and give all consequential benefits from the due date. 2. The applicants are presently working as Helpers with the respondents. It is not disputed that when they were recruited the minimum prescribed qualification for them was 8th pass with working knowledge of electrical and mechanical machines. This was more than the qualification required for general Group-D posts, which was only 8th pass. It is not disputed that the Recruitment Rules for the post of LDC provide 5% promotion quot...
Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai-i Vs. M/S. Kalpana Lamps and C ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Apr-02-2014
1. None appears on behalf of the respondent despite issue of notice. 2. Heard the learned Authorised Representative on behalf of the Revenue and perused the records. 3. The respondent is engaged in the manufacture of Fluorescent Tube Lights (dutiable) and General Lighting Service lamps (NIL duty) classifiable under Heading No.85.39 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They were availing Cenvat credit benefit. A Show Cause Notice dated 26.03.2001, was issued proposing an amount of Rs.30,94,760/- for the clearance of General Lighting Service lamps during the period from March, 2000 to Jan. 01 under Rule 57AH of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 along with interest and penalty. It has been alleged that the respondent were manufacturing exempted and dutiable finished products and they have contravened the provisions of Rule 57AD of the erstwhile Rules insofar as they have not reversed the credit on certain inputs used in the m...
Prem Lata Parmar, New Delhi Vs. Union of India Through the Secretary, ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Apr-02-2014
Shekhar Agarwal, Member (A). 1. The applicant is aggrieved by denial of promotion to her to the post of Assistant Architect and is seeking a direction to the respondents to consider her case for promotion afresh w.e.f. the date when her two immediate juniors, namely, Mr. Neera Kumar and Mr. Thangalum Hanghal were promoted with all consequential benefits. She had initially joined the Department of Posts and Telegraph as a Junior Architect in 1972. On 21.02.1980 cadre of the applicant was changed and she was made Architect Assistant. She had been awarded a penalty on 11.10.2004. On 03.10.2006, two colleagues of the applicant, who were junior to her, were promoted to the grade of Asstt. Architect Group-B. This was before her superannuation on 30.09.2007. On 29.06.2009 the applicant filed OA-1751/2009 which was dismissed as withdrawn on 08.07.2009 by this Tribunal with liberty given to the applicant to file a fresh one. On 24.02.2010 she filed OA-3694/2009, which was disposed of by this Tr...
Schott Glass India Pvt. Ltd. and Another Vs. Competition Commission of ...
Court: Competition Appellate Tribunal
Decided on: Apr-02-2014
V.S. SIRPURKAR, CHAIRMAN: 1. This judgment shall govern two appeals, they being Appeal No. 91 of 2012 by M/s. Schott Glass India Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCI and Ors. and Appeal No. 92 of 2012 by M/s. Kapoor Glass (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. M/s. Schott Glass India Pvt. Ltd. 2. This Appeal No. 91 of 2012 is filed on behalf of M/s. Schott Glass India Pvt. Ltd. (Appellant) against the order of Competition Commission of India (for short the 'CCI') whereby CCI has held the Appellant guilty of contravention of section 4 of the Competition Act (for short the "Act") and has inflicted a penalty of Rs.5.66 crore. It has also passed the cease and desist order to the following effect:- a) That Schott Glass India should desist from applying dissimilar conditions while giving discounts to Schott Kaisha vis-a-vis other Converters. b) The terms of transactions for supply of tubes to Schott Kaisha, the JV should be similar and non-discriminatory vis-a-vis the other Converters. c) The discount on both amber and clear ...
Anil Kumar, New Delhi and Another Vs. Union of India, Through the Fore ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Apr-02-2014
(Oral). Syed Rafat Alam, J. In the instant Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicants are aggrieved with the action of the respondents in fixing their seniority vis-a-vis persons promoted on the basis of Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) and are, therefore, seeking the following reliefs:- (i). To declare the action of respondents in giving retrospective seniority to the persons appointed on the basis of LDCE as illegal, arbitrary and violative of fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. (ii) To quash and set aside the impugned seniority list dated 03.01.2012 of Private Secretaries as well as other relevant seniority list as at Annexure A-1 and direct the respondents to fix the seniority of all the Private Secretaries in Grade I of Stenographers Cadre of IFS(B) in the Ministry of External Affairs appointed on the basis of seniority cum fitness and LDCE from the date of substantive app...
- ‹ Prev
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 20
- 21
- Next ›
- Last »