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.
Lac Rahul Chandra Kapari Vs. Uoi and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: May-07-2014
R.C. Mishra, Member (J): 1. This is titled as an application under Section 15 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007, calling in question the order dated 8th April 2013,passed by AOC in C (training)Command, rejecting the pre-confirmation appeal under Rule 16(1) of the Air Force Rules, 1969.But, in essence and substance, it is an appeal against the order passed by District Court Martial at Air Force Station, Hakimpet on 25th February,2013 convicting the applicant, of the offences punishable under Sections 52(a) and 71 of the Air Force Act 1950 and imposing sentences of Rigorous Imprisonment for six months and dismissal from service. 2. The prosecution story, in short, may be narrated as under: - A. On 1st May 2012,finding the Syndicate Bank ATM cum Debit Card no. 4033983022319545 ( for brevity ?ATM Card?) missing, Complainant Mohit Kumar (PW-1) informed the Customer Care Department of the Bank about non-traceability thereof. Since the Bank was closed on that day, it was on the 2nd May, ...
M/S. Continental Consultants Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Kolkata
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Kolkata
Decided on: May-07-2014
Dr. D.M. Misra, J. 1. This is an Application filed seeking waiver of predeposit of Service Tax of Rs.3,41,329/- and equal amount of penalty under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994. 2. Ld. Authorized Representative for the Applicant submits that the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has not decided the appeal on merit. He submits that even though their Principal had paid the entire service tax, they were saddled with the service tax demand. He also submits that the issue has not been decided on merit. However, he makes an offer to deposit Rs.75,000/- and prays that the matter may be remanded to the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) for decision on merit. 3. Ld. AR for the Revenue has not objection for remanding the case, as the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has not decided the issue on merit. However, he submits that the Applicant may be put into terms before remanding the matter. 4. After hearing both sides for some time, we find that the Appeal itself, could be disposed off, at this stage. According...
Sheeja Santosh and Others Vs. the Director General Esic Headquarters P ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: May-07-2014
G. George Paracken, Member (J) Applicants are working as Staff Nurses in different Hospitals under the Respondent No.1, namely, the Employees State Insurance Corporation (ESIC for short). Their claim is that they are entitled for the minimum pay of Rs.13860/- and Grade Pay of Rs.4600/- making their basic pay of Rs.18460/- as per the fixation table for Rs.7450/- with bunching being done as applicable w.e.f. 01.01.2006. In the alternative, they have sought a direction to the Respondents to grant them at least the minimum of Rs.12540/- and the Grade Pay of Rs.4600/- making it Rs.17140/- w.e.f. 01.01.2006 as an interim measure, as has been granted to the direct recruits who joined the cadre as Nursing Staff as on 01.01.2006 till a decision by the Respondent No.1 on the issue of grant of basic pay of Rs.18460/- is taken. 2. They had earlier approached this Tribunal vide OA No. 1865/2012 seeking the aforesaid reliefs. This Tribunal, vide its order dated 28.05.2012, directed the Respondents t...
M/S. Bal Pharma Ltd, Bangalore Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax Bangalo ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT
Decided on: May-07-2014
B.S.V. Murthy, J. CENVAT credit of Rs.54,18,114/- has been disallowed for the reasons as detailed below. (a). Invoices not addressed to corporate office but addressed to Bal Pharma Ltd., Bangalore. Rs.13,71,809/- (b). Invoices addressed to No.21/22, Bommasandra Indl. Area, Hosur Road, Bangalore Rs.24,90,861/- (c). Invoices addressed to other units of Bal Pharma Rs.9,42,260/- (d). Invoices addressed to other individuals/firms Rs. 20,692/- (e). Invoices without service recipients address Rs.1,89,848/- (f) Debit Notes, Statements, Letters and E-mails, etc. Rs.3,31,567/- (g) No documents Rs. 71,078/- 1. The amount has been demanded with interest and penalties have also been imposed. 2. The learned counsel submitted that extended period could not have been invoked in this case since the audit of the factory was being done every year, appellant was filing the returns regularly and department was aware of the facts. The period involved in the impugned order is from November 2007 to July 2011....
Murlidhar and Others Vs. Union of India Through Its Secretary, Departm ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: May-07-2014
Shekhar Agarwal, Member (A) Following relief has been sought in this O.A.:- œThat the Honble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to pass an order of quashing the impugned orders dated 5.12.2011, 16.12.2011 and 23.12.2011 (Annexure.A/1 to A/3) by which the respondents merged the post of Assistant Director (Bio-Chemistry, earlier junior Biochemist, with the post of Assistant Director (Chemistry), declaring to the effect that the same is illegal, arbitrary and against the rules.? 2. Brief facts of the case are that the applicants were working as Assistant Director (Chemistry) in the Central Insecticide Laboratory (in short CIL) in the Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperation. According to them the next promotional post for them is Dy. Director (Chemistry), then the Joint Director (Chemistry) and further Director (Chemistry). They have submitted that there were five posts of Scientific Officer in Chemistry Division whose pay scales were revised to Rs.15600-39100 + Grade Pay of Rs.5400 ...
Chandramowli Srinivasan, Bangalore and Another Vs. Commissioner of Cen ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT
Decided on: May-07-2014
B.S.V. Murthy, J. 1. After hearing both the sides for some time, we reached the conclusion that the matter is required to be remanded at this stage itself. Accordingly, the requirement of pre-deposit is waived and appeals are taken up for final decision. 2. On the ground that there was no nexus between the input service and the output service and the appellant-company was also engaged in trading activity and therefore entire CENVAT credit was not admissible on input services, proceedings were initiated against the Bangalore unit of the appellant which has culminated in the impugned order wherein CENVAT credit of Rs.7,72,75,750/- availed by them on the basis of invoices issued by input service distributor has been denied and demanded with interest and penalty also has been imposed. 3. The learned counsel submitted that first of all, appellants found that the total amount of service tax availed was less than Rs.7.1 crores and the request for clarification made by them as to how the amoun...
West Central Railway, General Manager Office Vs. Madhya Pradesh Electr ...
Court: Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL Appellate Jurisdiction
Decided on: May-07-2014
Surendra Kumar, Judicial Member. 1. The instant Appeal is directed against the impugned tariff order 2012-13, dated 31.3.2012 passed by the Madhya Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (hereinafter called the State Commission) for determination of railway traction tariff and bulk supply category to the Railway in Madhya Pradesh wherein the State commission had increased the Demand Charges for the Railway Traction supply for existing Rs.220/- per KVA to Rs. 265/- per KVA i.e. @ Rs.45/- per KVA and energy charges from Rs.4.70/KWH to Rs.5.00 /KWH i.e. @ Rs.0.30 per KWH unit for the year 2012-13, effective from 10.4.2012 based on the ARR and Tariff Applications made by the distribution licensees namely, Madhya Pradesh Poorv Kshetra Vidyut Vitaran Company Limited (East Discom), Madhya Pradesh Paschim Kshetra Vidyut Vitaran Company Limited (West Discom) and Madhya Pradesh Madhya Kshetra Vidyut Vitaran Company Limited (Central Discom), (Respondent No. 2 to 4 herein) in Petition No. 72/201...
Chandrika Prasad Sonkar, Ex-ward Member, Madhya Pradesh Vs. Union of I ...
Court: National Green Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: May-07-2014
Dalip Singh, Judicial Member 1. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the Applicant sought to raise the issue with regard to violation of the conditions of the EC dated 4th June, 2013 granted to the intervener by SEIAA. Since, the original letter petition filed before the Honble High Court did not contain any such averment with regard to the issue now sought to be raised during the course of hearing and even the project proponent not having been made a party/respondent, what was only permitted to intervene once and the application filed by the project proponent before the Honble High Court the project proponent has also indicated in the application that no illegal activity is being carried out by the project proponent but has only carried out the work in accordance with the EC granted to him. 2. In that view of the matter, the issues which are now sought to be raised during the hearing, the project proponent cannot be taken by the element of surprise. Even otherwise, in c...
Sanjay Jethilal Soni Vs. Securities and Exchange Board of India, Sebi ...
Court: SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT
Decided on: May-07-2014
J.P. Devadhar, Presiding Officer (Oral) 1. By Miscellaneous Application No. 41 of 2014 applicant seeks condonation of delay of about 729 days in filing Appeal No. 58 of 2014 wherein the adjudication order dated October 21, 2011 passed by the Adjudicating Officer (œAO? for short) of Securities and Exchange Board of India (œSEBI? for short) is challenged. 2. Grievance of the applicant is that although a copy of the impugned order was forwarded by SEBI at the address of Shri Viral Kapadia as given by the applicant, there was considerable delay on the part of Shri Viral Kapadia in handing over copy of the impugned order to the applicant. Immediately on receiving copy of impugned order from Shri Viral Kapadia applicant approached his advocate with a view to challenge the impugned order and accordingly the present appeal is filed belatedly. 3. As rightly contended by counsel for respondent when both the applicant as also Shri Viral Kapadia were residing at Ahmedabad there was no ...
Jay Energy and S. Energies Ltd. Vs. Securities and Exchange Board of I ...
Court: SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT
Decided on: May-07-2014
J.P. Devadhar, Presiding Officer (Oral) 1. This appeal is filed to challenge the adjudication order dated March 30, 2012 passed by the Adjudicating Officer (œAO? for short) of Securities and Exchange Board of India (œSEBI? for short) wherein penalty of Rs.45 lac has been imposed upon the appellant for not redressing investor grievances within the time specified therein and not submitting action taken report within the time specified in the specified format. 2. Grievance of the appellant is that, it is a defunct company since last 14 years. It is contended that inspite of the appellant company being a defunct company steps were taken from time to time to redress the investor grievances. 3. It is not in dispute that during the pendency of this appeal all investor grievances that were pending as on the date of adjudication order dated March 30, 2012 have been redressed. 4. On being pointed out by the counsel for respondent that as on date there are 25 more investor grievances,...
- ‹ Prev
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- Next ›
- Last »