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.
Vinay Kumar and Others Vs. General Manager, Northern Railway and Other ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: May-08-2014
P.K. Basu, Member (A) By this common order, we propose to dispose of OA 382/2014 and OA 824/2014 together as facts and issues involved in both the OAs are identical. Facts have, however, been extracted from OA 382/2014. 2. The respondents had issued an advertisement vide notification dated 30.08.2012 inviting applications from eligible candidates for recruitment to 7368 posts in various Divisions/ Workshops/ Units under the respondents organization. The applicants appeared in the recruitment test held during November-December, 2013 but have been issued rejection letters on the ground of being 100% blind. It is the contention of the applicants that they are eligible and entitled to be considered both on their general merit as also against the reservation for visually handicapped persons against 1% quota for them. The applicants have also filed MA 1091/2014 in which it has been stated that OA 467/2014 was also filed involving the same controversy with regard to exclusion of 100% blind fr...
Devyani Chandrakant Doshi Shrutina Vs. Securities and Exchange Board o ...
Court: SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT
Decided on: May-08-2014
J.P. Devadhar, Presiding Officer (Oral) 1. This appeal is filed to challenge order of Adjudicating Officer of SEBI dated January 23, 2014 whereby penalty of Rs. 12 Lakhs has been imposed upon Appellant under Section 15A(b) of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992. Grievance of the Appellant is that the acquisition of shares in the present case was by way of transmission and not by transfer and therefore provisions of SEBI (Prohibition of Insider Trading) Regulations, 1992 and SEBI (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeover) Regulations, 2011 were not attracted. Learned counsel for appellant further relies upon a decision passed by the Adjudicating Officer of SEBI dated November 29, 2013 in the case of Shri D.S. Reddy / Ms. D. Sarojanamma wherein a lenient view was taken by not imposing penalty and Ms. D. Sarojanamma was exonerated from the charges levelled against her in the show case notice. Since the above order was not brought to the notice of Adjudicating Office...
Pawan Kumar Vs. Union of India Through General Manager, Northern Railw ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: May-08-2014
Oral: G. George Paracken, Member (J) The Applicant has filed this Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs:- (i) Declare the termination of the Applicant null and void and also illegal as taken by the Respondents. (ii) To direct the Respondents to take him in service with all consequential benefits. (iii) To direct the Respondents to pass a reasoned and speaking order in to illegal termination. (iv) To direct the Respondents to decide the representations of the Applicant with reasons and speaking order, within stipulated period. (v) To pass any such order/orders which this Tribunal may deem fit and proper. 2. According to the Applicant, he worked for 235 days during the period from December, 1983 to August, 1984. Further according to him, in the year 1983 the Respondents have issued a Scheme for granting Temporary Status to the casual labourers. According to the said Scheme, the casual labourers except those who were ...
Commissioner of Customs (Port), Kolkata Commissioner Vs. M/S. Noble Re ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Kolkata
Decided on: May-08-2014
Dr. D.M. Misra, J. 1. This Appeal is filed by the Revenue against the Order-in-Appeal No.KOL/CUS/CKP/364/2010 dated 04.01.2011. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the Respondent had filed a shipping bill for export of 19500 WMT(Wet Metric Tonne)/17,745 DMT (Dry Metric Tonne) of iron-ore fines, declaring its assessable value @US $108 per DMT. The Department assessed the goods by enhancing its value from US $108 per MT to US $117 per MT and also the value was determined on the basis of WMT instead of DMT. Aggrieved by the said assessment, the Assessee had filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who had directed the assessment on DMT basis and allowed the appeal against the enhancement of value from US $108 per MT to US $117 per MT. Aggrieved by the said Order, the Revenue is in appeal. 2. Ld. Special Counsel for the Revenue submitted that in the impugned Order, the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) decided two issues: (i). Whether the export goods be assessed to duty on WMT...
Dushyant N. Dalal Vs. Securities and Exchange Board of India Sebi Bhav ...
Court: SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT
Decided on: May-08-2014
J.P. Devadhar, Presiding Officer (Oral) 1. Not on Board. Mentioned by learned counsel for the Applicant. By consent, Misc. Application taken up for hearing. 2. By this Misc. Application Applicant seeks modification of our order dated April 29, 2014. It is contended on behalf of the Applicant that in paragraph 5 of the aforesaid order the word œapplication? should be substituted by the word œrequest? because the appellant had only requested for inspection of various documents / cross examination of witnesses and had not made any application. We see no reason to modify our order, because, in our order we have only recorded the statement made by learned counsel for the respondent. Moreover, statement made by the counsel for the respondent is with a view to comply our order dated October 4, 2012 and hence no modification of the order is necessary. 3. In this view of the matter, we see no reason to entertain the present Misc. Application and same is dismissed with no order as to...
Jagat Ram Chicham, Madhya Pradesh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Thro ...
Court: National Green Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: May-08-2014
1. Initially this petition was filed as Public Interest Litigation (PIL) before the Honble High Court of Madhya Pradesh Principal Seat at kavita Jabalpur in Writ Petition No. 3219/2013 with a prayer to issue Writ of Mandamus to the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and restrain the functioning of Respondent No. 4 Madhya Pradesh Forest Development Corporation (in short MPFDC/Corporation) and from cutting the trees in the forest. The relief prayed by the petitioner is reproduced below. i. A writ of Mandamus to Respondent No. 1 and 2 to stop the functioning of Respondent No.4 and conducting the inquiry against the Respondent No.4 for causing damage to the forest area. ii. A command to Respondent No. 1 and 2 to abolish Respondent No. 4 and permit the Forest Department to look after the forest area in accordance with Indian Forest Act. iii. A command to Respondents 1 and 2 to cease (seize) all the machinery (used) for felling the trees. iv. Any other relief deemed fit in the circumstances 1. The case...
Commissioner of Customs (Port), Kolkata Vs. M/S. Noble Resources and T ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Kolkata
Decided on: May-08-2014
Dr. D.M. Misra, J. 1. These three Appeals are filed by the Revenue against respective three Orders-in-Appeal dated 29.03.10, 28.01.10 and 22.03.10, all passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Kolkata, involving a common issue. Hence, all these Appeals are taken up together for disposal. 2. The facts common in all these Appeals, relate to determination of assessable value of iron-ore fines exported by the Appellants. The Department assessed the respective shipping bills on the basis of WMT instead of DMT. Undisputedly, the period involved in all these three Appeals, were after 13.06.2008, where the export duty of iron-ore fines has been charged on ad valorem rate basis. The Assessment Orders were challenged by the assessee before the ld. Commissioner (Appeals), who after considering the arguments/grounds stated in the Appeal held that the said iron-ore fines be assessed to duty on the transaction value arrived at on the Dry Weight per Metric Ton (DMT) basis and not on Wet W...
M/S. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.(Md) Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Port ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Kolkata
Decided on: May-08-2014
Dr. I.P. Lal, J. 1. This is an Appeal filed against the Order passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Kolkata. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the Appellant, during the financial years, 1998-99, 1999-2000 and 2000-01, had imported Superior Kerosene Oil (here-in-after referred to as SKO) and availed the benefit of exemption Notification Nos.23/98-Cus. dated 22.06.1998, 20/99-Cus. dated 28.02.1999 and 16/2000-Cus. dated 01.03.2000. These Notifications exempt the kerosene oil imported by M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. for ultimate sale through Public Distribution System (PDS). Investigations conducted by the Officers of the DRI, however, revealed that the imported goods were not solely used for the purposes specified in the above Notifications. Accordingly, show cause notice was issued to the Appellant and adjudicated by the Commissioner, which culminated into confirmation of Customs Duty demand of Rs.412,17,25,807/-, interest (not quantified) and equivalent amount of penalty imposed...
Dileep Singh Vs. Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and Others
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: May-07-2014
G. George Paracken, M (J) The Applicant is an Ex-Serviceman who was discharged from Army after having rendered 17 years and 4 months of service. His grievance in this Original Application is that the Respondents have ignored the rules and regulations issued by the Government of India, Department of Personnel and Training for granting reservation to Ex-Servicemen in his case. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, Department of Personnel and A.R. vide Notification No.39016/10/79-Estt.(C ) dated 15.12.1979 issued the Ex-Servicemen (Re-employment in Central Civil Services and Posts) Rule 1979 for resettlement of Ex-Servicemen. According to the said notification, certain percentage of vacancies in some of the Central Government services is reserved for being filled up by the Ex-Servicemen and for some of the vacancies, age relaxation and fee exemption have been given to them. Para 4 and 5 of the said Notification reads as under:- œ4...
M/S. Valsala Travels Pvt. Ltd, Bangalore Vs. Commissioner of Service T ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT
Decided on: May-07-2014
B.S.V. Murthy, J. 1. This appeal has been dismissed on the ground that appellants did not comply with the directions in the stay order which required them to deposit entire amount of service tax along with 50% of the penalty. 2. Learned counsel submits that the order-in-original in this case was passed on 16.8.2010 and the matter was heard once by a Commissioner but no order was passed in the year 2010. Subsequently the matter was fixed for hearing of the appeal and during the hearing the appellants had pleaded financial difficulties. He submits that the Commissioner has observed in para 7 of the impugned order that no financial hardship has been expressed. Learned counsel takes us through the written submissions made by them and shows that indeed there was a submission that appellants had serious financial hardship. However, he also submits that appellants have a prima facie case in view of the fact that in the order-in-original the discussion portion and the entire order-in-original ...
- ‹ Prev
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- Next ›
- Last »