Tribunal Court May 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.
Ganpat Khanderao Farande Vs. the Executive Engineer and Others
Court: Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL Appellate Jurisdiction
Decided on: May-13-2014
M. Karpaga Vinayagam, Chairperson 1. The Appellants are the land owners in their village Ozarde in Maharashtra State. 2. The Respondent nos. 1 and 2 are the officers of the Transmission Licensee. 3. This Appeal has been filed by the Applicants to challenge the impugned order dated 31.7.2012 passed by the Maharashtra State Commission dismissing their Petition to restrain the transmission licensee from putting transmission line over their land. 4. Short facts are these: 5. The Transmission Licensee proposed to put up a transmission line over the lands situated in the village including that of the Applicants. Since there was objection from some of the land owners, the Transmission Licensee approached the District Magistrate and sought for protection as against the people who were opposing the construction of towers of transmission line work and prayed for restraining the land owners including the Applicants from doing the same. 6. The District Magistrate after hearing the parties, passed ...
Madhya Pradesh Power Generating Company Limited Vs. Madhya Pradesh Ele ...
Court: Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL Appellate Jurisdiction
Decided on: May-13-2014
Rakesh Nath, Tehnical Member 1. This Appeal has been filed by M P Power Generating Co. Ltd. against the order dated 12.10.2012 passed by Madhya Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (œState Commission?) dismissing the petition filed by the Appellant seeking determination of tariff of its small hydro generating station in terms of its tariff order dated 30.6.2008. 2. The Appellant is a generating company and is engaged in the business of generating electricity in the State of Madhya Pradesh. The State Commission is the first Respondent. The other Respondents are State Power Management Company, distribution licensees and the transmission licensee/STU. The Appellant and the Respondent no. 2 to 6 are the successor entities of the erstwhile M P Electricity Board. The Appellant sells its power to the Respondent no.2 for onward sale to the three distribution companies, the Respondent nos. 3 to 5 herein. 3. The brief facts of the case are as under: 3.1 One of the generating stations ...
M/S. Arvind Limited Vs. C.C.E. Ahmedabad-iii
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad
Decided on: May-13-2014
H.K. Thakur, J. 1. Both theseappeals have filed by the appellant against common OIA No.161-164/2010(Ahd-III)KCG/Commr.(A)/Ahd., dt. 11.10.2010, passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Ahmedabad. Since the issues involved in both the appeals are the same, these are being taken up for disposal under this common order. 2. Both the appellants are composite textile mills engaged, inter alia, in the manufacture of 100% cotton fabrics falling under Chapter 52 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act 1985, which were cleared for export as well as for home consumption. Appellants were simultaneously availing exemption under Notification No.29/2004-CE and 30/2004-CE both dated 09.07.2004. Notification No.29/2004-CE prescribed concessional rate of duty @ 4% Adv. unconditionally for 100% cotton fabrics and in this case the appellants also availed CENVAT Credit of duty paid on inputs, capital goods and input services used in the manufacture of 100% cotton fabrics, which wer...
Surender Kumar Yadav Vs. Union of India, Through Its Defence Secretary ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: May-12-2014
Ashok Kumar, Member (A) The OA has been filed against the alleged unjust and unfair action of the respondents whereby Respondent No.3 has offered an appointment without following due process of recruitment to one Shri Anil Kumar Berwal to the post of Assistant Manager of CAMERO URC (Extension), ignoring the service and experience of the applicant who had been working in CAMERO AF CSD Canteen as Assistant Manager from 12.4.2004 to 27.2.2009. 2. Following reliefs have been sought in this OA:- To quash and set aside the proceedings which is going on to appoint Sh. Anil Kumar Berwal, JWO, as Assistant Manager CAMERO AF CANTEEN, Subroto Park, New Delhi, as the same are illegal, unjust and against the rules framed vide letter No.96029/Q/DDGCS dated 28th April, 2003. To allow the applicant to participate in the process of recruitment for the post of Assistant Manager, CAMERO AF CANTEEN, Subroto Park, New Delhi, keeping in view the experience, qualifications of the applicant over the person Sh...
Sh. Gaurav Singh and Others Vs. Union of India Through the Secretary, ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: May-12-2014
Shekhar Agarwal, Member (A) The applicants of this O.A. are directly recruited Income Tax Inspectors of Delhi Region. According to them, they had all applied for the post of Income Tax Inspector in response to an advertisement dated 23.07.2005 issued by Staff Selection Commission (SSC). The preliminary examination was held on 13.11.2005 followed by the main examination in the year 2006. Subsequently, interviews were held in 2007. All the applicants qualified in the said examination and the final result was declared by the SSC in 2008 after which their dossiers were forwarded, the character and antecedents of the applicants were verified and they were also asked to undergo medical examination. Finally, they joined their posts on different dates in the year 2008-09. 2. Prior to their joining, Gujarat High Court in the case of UOI and Ors. Vs. N.R. Parmar and Ors. (Special Civil Appeal No. 3574 of 2004) had delivered a judgment on 17.08.2004 in which it was held that the seniority of dire...
Securities and Exchange Board of India, Sebi Bhavan Vs. Alka India Lim ...
Court: SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT
Decided on: May-09-2014
J.P. Devadhar, Presiding Officer (Oral) 1. This Miscellaneous Application is taken out by Securities and Exchange Board of India (œSEBI? for short) seeking extension of time for passing the final order by 4 months. By our order dated January 21, 2014 passed in the aforesaid appeal we had directed SEBI to pass final order under Section 11B proceedings within a period of 4 weeks from that day. Counsel for the appellant has no objection if extension of time is granted as the appellant is also seeking extension of time to file reply. Accordingly, we pass the following order:- A) Time to file reply by appellant is extended by 4 weeks from today. B) SEBI shall pass final order on or before September 20, 2014. 2. Miscellaneous Application is disposed of in above terms with no order as to costs....
Commissioner of Central Excise and S.T., Daman Vs. M/S. Aarti Industri ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad
Decided on: May-09-2014
H.K. Thakur, J. 1. Appeal No. E/ 186/ 2010-SM, filed by the Revenue, is directed against the Order-in-Appeal No. AKP/ 56-57/ DIVN Vapi-I/ DAMAN/ 2009-2010 dated 20.10.2009, passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax, Daman. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that M/s Aarti Industries Limited, the respondent, are engaged in the manufacture/ processing of Organic and Inorganic Chemicals and availing CENVAT Credit. The respondent purchased cylinders for storage of hydrogen gas for use in the process of manufacture of various chemicals in its factory. The hydrogen gas is procured from various suppliers, and in this process the empty Hydrogen Cylinders have to move out from the respondents factory frequently for refilling of hydrogen gas. After refilling, the Hydrogen Cylinders are received back in the respondents factory and put to use in the appellants factory for manufacture of final products. The Hydrogen Cylinders are installed on hired vehic...
Dinesh Kumar Upadhyay, Raipur (C.G.) Vs. Union of India Through Secret ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: May-09-2014
Dr. B.K. Sinha, Member (A): 1. The applicant has filed the instant OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 assailing the order of the respondent no.3 dated 09.04.2008 (Annexure P-1) considering the period of absence of the applicant as his deemed resignation. 2. The applicant has prayed for the following relief(s):- That the Honble Tribunal may be kindly pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of the petitioner for its kind perusal. That this Honble Tribunal may kindly be pleased to set aside and quash the impugned order dated 09.04.2008 passed by the respondent no.3 (Annexure P/11). That this Honble Tribunal may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent reinstate the petitioner into his services with all consequential benefits. That the Honble Court may be pleased to grant any other relief which the Honble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 3. The case of the applicant, in very brief, is that he i...
R. Shyamala Joint Director Tt-ii, Ministry of Railways, Rail Bhawan, N ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: May-09-2014
G. George Paracken, Member (J) MA No. 3279/2013 This Miscellaneous Application has been filed in RA No.208/2013 seeking stay of the order dated 11.10.2013 passed in OA No. 2145/2009. MA No. 3280/2013 2. This MA has been filed for granting oral hearing in the RA No.208/2013. MA No. 3281/2013 3. This Miscellaneous Application has been filed by the Miscellaneous Applicants for impleadment of them as Respondents in OA No. 2145/2009. MA No. 3282/2013 in R.A. No.208/2013 4. This Miscellaneous Application has been filed in RA No.208/2013 seeking direction to summon official records pertaining to the subject matter. MA No.1224/2014 in RA No.208/2013 5. This MA has been filed seeking an order to stay the operation of the order of this Tribunal dated 11.10.2013 pass in OA No.2145/2009 till the disposal of the Review Application. RA No.208/2013 in OA No. 2145/2009 6. This Review Application bearing No.208/2013 has been filed by the Applicants seeking review of the order of this Tribunal dated 11....
M/S. Munjal Auto Industries Vs. Cceandst. Vadodara
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad
Decided on: May-09-2014
H.K. Thakur, J. 1. Appeal Nos. E/ 568/ 2007 and E/ 569/ 2007 are filed by the same appellant M/s Munjal Auto Industries Ltd. against the Orders-in-Appeal No. Commr. (A)/ 24 and 25/ VDR-II/ 2007 dated 25.01.2007/19.2.2007 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise and Customs, Vadodara. As both these appeals are based on the same set of facts, therefore, these are being taken up together for disposal by this common order. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant is a manufacturer of auto parts falling under Chapter 87 of the Central Excise Tariff Act 1985 and had been clearing the same for quite some time original equipment parts (Mufflers) to the factories of M/s Hero Honda Motors Limited at Gurgaon and Dharuhera. Many times on account of certain commercial contingencies there is a variation in Price, in upward or downward direction, after having cleared the said Mufflers from the appellants manufactory on payment of duty. If there is upward revision of ...
- ‹ Prev
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- Next ›
- Last »