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.
Union of India, Through Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Apr-29-2014
(Oral). Syed Rafat Alam, J. 1. This Review Application is preferred by the respondents to the Original Application (hereinafter referred to as respondent-applicants) seeking review/recall of order of the Tribunal dated 22.12.2011 in OA No.3065/2011.2. We have heard Sh. R. N. Singh, learned counsel for the respondent-applicants and Sh. Lalta Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the applicant of the OA (hereinafter referred to as applicant-respondent). 3. It appears that the applicant-respondent has invoked the jurisdiction of the Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 by moving OA No.3065/2011 seeking the following reliefs: 8. In view of the facts and circumstances mentioned in above paras, it is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that the Honble Tribunal may be graciously pleased to pass an order:- a). Direct the respondents to grant the age relaxation and consider for the post of Driver to the applicant on the basis of Naresh Bagris case. b). Pass a suc...
M/S. Bmm Ispat Limited Vs. Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Ltd
Court: Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL Appellate Jurisdiction
Decided on: Apr-29-2014
M. Karpaga Vinayagam, Chairperson. 1. BMM Ispat Limited is the Appellant herein. Challenging the Impugned Order dated 7.3.2013 passed by Karnataka State Commission dismissing the Petition filed by the Appellant, this Appeal has been filed. 2. The short facts as referred to in the Appeal Memorandum are set out as follows: (a) The Appellant is a Generating Company. It owns, operates and maintains two Co-Generation Based Power Plants each having a capacity of 25 and 70 MW respectively. (b) Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited (BESCOM), the 1st Respondent, is the Distribution Licensee which is supplying electricity to the city of Banglore. The Power Company of Karnataka Limited, the 2nd Respondent, is the power procurer responsible for procuring power for various Distribution Licensees in the State of Karnataka. (c) The Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation limited i.e. State Transmission Utility for Karnataka is the Respondent No.3. (d) The Power Company (R-2) on 7.7.2011 issue...
Nawab Khan and Others Vs. Department of Housing and Environment, Bhopa ...
Court: National Green Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Apr-29-2014
(NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL CENTRAL ZONAL BENCH, BHOPAL) Dalip Singh, Judicial Member: 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Reply submitted today by the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 is ordered to be taken O.A. No. 52 of 2014 Page 4 of 8 on record. Copy of the same has been furnished to the learned counsel for the Applicant. 2. This application had been filed by the Applicant complaining about the pollution being caused by various units including that of Respondent No. 5 in the industrial area at Govindpura in Bhopal. As regards the Respondent No. 5, it was submitted that the said unit is operating sand blasting and short blasting at Plot No. 3, Sector-D of the Industrial Area of Govindpura and as a result of the aforesaid activity, since necessary precautionary measures had not been put into place, they were violating the provisions of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and causing air pollution in the vicinity. 3. The Tribunal after receipt of ...
Shree Cement Limited Vs. Buildersâandeuro;andtrade; Association of In ...
Court: Competition Appellate Tribunal
Decided on: Apr-29-2014
V.S. Sirpurkar, Chairman. 1. M/s. Shree Cement (the "Appellant") was found guilty of breach of sections 3(3)(a) and 3(3)(b) read with section 3(1) of the Competition Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Competition Act'). On that account the Competition Commission of India (hereinafter the 'CCI') in case No. RTPE 52 of 2006 imposed a fine of Rs.397.51 crores on the Appellant. This amount was calculated on the basis of net profit of the Appellant from 20th May, 2009 to 31st March, 2011. The CCI ordered 0.5 times of this net profit. It is this order of imposing penalty which is sought to be stayed. 2. It may be mentioned that the proceedings against twelve cement manufacturing concerns were initiated by the MRTP Commission, taking suo-moto notice of an article in The Economic Times on 9th May, 2006 and 29th June, 2006. The said step was taken in view of a sharp raise in the cement prices from 2003-2005. It was Rs.125/- to Rs.145/- per bag, upto December 2005, but the price reached ...
Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd. and Others Vs. Union of India (Dot)
Court: Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal TDSAT
Decided on: Apr-29-2014
Aftab Alam, Chairperson. The Dispute: its genesis This batch of cases raises the question about the validity of what is loosely called as intra-circle 3G roaming. Or to put the matter in legalese: whether it is permissible for two mobile phone operators within the same service area/circle, one having its 2G network on the lower frequency 900 MHz (the primary GSM band) or 1800 MHz bands and the other, a 3G network on the higher frequency 2100 MHz band, to enter into a bilateral arrangement under which the subscribers of the former are able to roam on the 3G network of the latter? The frequencies in 2100 MHz or 2.1 GHz (loosely called the 3G spectrum in this country) were allocated by the Central Government to different mobile phone operators on the basis of an auction. As everyone had known from before, owing to the limited availability of spectrum, no single operator was able to get the 3G spectrums in all the 22 circles in the country; some operators got the 3G spectrums in some of th...
M/S. F.L. Smidth Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce, Trichy
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Apr-28-2014
1. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of parts of pre-heater and cleared the same to M/s. Dalmia Cements (Bharat) Ltd. on the basis of contract. They are also undertaking trading activities. They availed input service credit paid on commission in respect of procurement of orders. A show-cause notice dated 28.11.2006 was issued proposing to deny input service credit of Rs.17,21,791/- being the amounts of wrong availment on service tax credit taken on the service tax paid on the materials procured and supplied under trading activities in the month of February 2005. It has also proposed demand of interest along with penalty. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of tax along with interest and also imposed penalty of Rs.10,000/- and the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the adjudication order. 2. The learned counsel on behalf of the appellant submits that the appellant used the credit in respect of business activities. He submits that the definition of input service unde...
M/S. Indowind Energy Limited Vs. Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Comm ...
Court: Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL Appellate Jurisdiction
Decided on: Apr-28-2014
M. Karpaga Vinayagam, Chairperson. 1. Both these Appeals are disposed of by this Common Judgment since the parties as well as the issues are the same. 2. The Appellant is a Wind Generating Company having two projects one having a capacity of 7.5 MW and another 10.5 MW capacity Wind Power Project. 3. Karnataka State Commission is the First Respondent. Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited (BESCOM), the Distribution Licensee is the Second Respondent. 4. The Appellant and the Distribution Licensee (R-2) have entered into PPA in respect of these two projects on 2.4.2008. Thereupon, these two projects were commissioned on 28.3.2009. 5. Under Article 6.5 of the PPA, the BESCOM (R-2) was required to establish and maintain an irrevocable Letter of Credit and make it operational prior to the Commercial Operation Date. 6. In terms of the directions of Government of Karnataka all the Distribution Companies were required to put in place the mechanism of Letter of Credit in terms of the PPA....
M/S. Srk Shipping and Logistics, Visakhapatnam Vs. Commissioner of Cen ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT
Decided on: Apr-28-2014
B.S.V. Murthy, J. 1. Appellant is seeking condonation of delay of 5 days. We are satisfied with the reasons given for condonation of delay and accordingly the delay in filing the appeal is condoned and stay application is taken up for consideration. 2. Appellant is registered as a provider of service under the category of supply of tangible goods during the period from October 2009 to September 2010. The learned counsel submits that appellant had been paying service tax regularly and unfortunately during the period from March 2010 to September 2010, the return could not be filed and tax also could not be paid. He fairly admits that the appellants are yet to pay a portion of the interest due. He also submits that there is no dispute as regards the demand for service tax. He submits that the appellants could not pay the service tax because there was an accident in the port resulting in huge compensation amounts to be paid by the appellants to the workers which caused extreme financial di...
Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai Vs. Nivaran Herbal Products Pv ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Apr-28-2014
Pradip Kumar Das, J. 1. Revenue filed this appeal against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) reduced the penalty from Rs.12,18,630/- to Rs.1,00,000/- imposed under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 2. The Ld. Authorized Reprehensive on behalf of appellant-Revenue submits that the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the demand of duty and liability of the penalty under Section 11AC of the Act. He submits that in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs Rajasthan Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. - 2009 (238) ELT 3 (SC), the Commissioner (Appeals) has no power to reduce the penalty. 3. None appears on behalf of the respondent. 4. After considering the submissions of Ld. Authorized Representative on behalf of Revenue and, on perusal of the records, I agree with the submission of Ld. A.R that in view of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of UOI Vs Rajasthan Spinning and Weaving Mills (supra), the C...
M/S. Spectrum Power Generation Limited Vs. Andhra Pradesh Electricity ...
Court: Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL Appellate Jurisdiction
Decided on: Apr-28-2014
M. Karpaga Vinayagam, Chairperson. 1. This is an Application to condone the delay of 287 days in filing the present Appeal as against the Order dated 17.4.2013 passed by the Andhra Pradesh State Commission. 2. M/s. Spectrum Power Generation Limited, the Applicant/Appellant is a Generating Company. The Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Limited is the 2nd Respondent. It was engaged in the business of purchase and sale of electricity in the State of Andhra Pradesh. 3. The Applicant/Appellant for the purpose of selling power generated by it entered into a Power Purchase Agreement dated 20.6.1993 with the Respondent. 4. On 18.4.1997, a major fire accident took place to a Generator of the Applicant when it was under spin cooling. The EPC contractor notified the above events as Force Majeure and requested for extension of time for completion of the project. 5. The Respondents were aware of the Force Majeure Events. In fact, they were communicated about the happenings of the events on...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »