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.
Latif Beg and Others Moef and Others Vs. Jyoti Mishra and Others
Court: National Green Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: May-30-2014
Msw Bareilly Case 1. On 03.01.2005, Respondent No.2, UPPCB granted a no- objection certificate in favor of Respondent No. 4, Municipal Corporation, Bareilly for setting up an integrated mechanical composting plant of 500 t/d capacity at village Razau Paraspur, in an area of 21.20 acres. On 28.03.2013, respondent no. 2 granted authorization to the respondent no. 4 for its MSW Plant at the same site. The said authorization expired on 31.12.2013.On its meeting held on 19.12.2012, State Level Environmental Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) agreed with the recommendation of the State Environmental Appraisal Committee (SEAC) and declared that respondent no. 4 was not required to take Environmental Clearance for Municipal Solid Waste Project under EIA Notification of 2006. The validity and correctness of this letter was challenged before this Tribunal in Application No. 86/2013, a petition filed by Rayons-Enlighting Humanity, a society, in Application No. 99/2013 by the Invertis University ...
S.R. Mohapatra Vs. Union of India Through Secretary, New Delhi and Oth ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: May-30-2014
V.N. Gaur, Member (A). MA No. 1386 of 2011 The present application filed for condonation of delay is allowed. OA No.1757/2011 The present OA has been filed with the following prayer: (a). Call for the records of the case. (b) Direct the respondents to release and pay all legal dues of the applicant along with interest thereon at the rate of 18% per annum from 10.1.2009, i.e. after expiry of statutory notice period of three months from the date of notice of voluntary retirement, i.e. 10.10.2008. (c) Quash and set aside the removal order No. P/UBL/227/GAZ/Optg/UBL/SRM along with order No. E(O)I/2007/PU-2/SWR/50 dated 19.10.2009 issued by Dy. Secretary/E(O)I, Railway Board, Ministry of Railways, Govt. of India, against the applicant by the disciplinary authority being non-est in the eyes of law as the same has been passed after the retirement of the applicant. (d) Direct the respondents to pay all the retiral dues, namely, pension etc. along with interest at the rate of 18% per ann...
Anil Kumar Constable (Ex.), Delhi Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi Through Co ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: May-30-2014
A.K. Bhardwaj, J. 1. In the present Original Application filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant has challenged the order No.5541-5562/HAP/Sec.(P-I) dated 23.5.2013 whereby the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Security (HQ), New Delhi ordered him to be dealt with departmentally under the provision of Rule 16 of Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980. The proceedings were entrusted to Inspector Vikram Singh, respondent No.3 (inquiry officer) to conduct the same on day to day basis. 2. The only argument put up by learned counsel for applicant is that the charges against the applicant in the departmental proceedings are same as in the criminal case registered vide FIR 354/2004 under Sections 452/323/34 IPC Adarsh Nagar, New Delhi. According to him, the charges involve the complex question of law, thus the criminal proceedings should take precedence over the disciplinary proceedings. The plea of the applicant that the charge against him in th...
M/S. Gokak Power and Energy Limited Vs. Karnataka Electricity Regulato ...
Court: Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL Appellate Jurisdiction
Decided on: May-30-2014
M. Karpaga Vinayagam, Chairperson. 1. Gokak Power and Energy Limited is the Appellant herein. 2. The Appellant has filed this Appeal challenging the Impugned Order passed by the Karnataka State Commission dated 9.10.2013 in the matter of Wheeling and Banking Charges for Renewable Energy Generators. 3. The short facts are as follows: (a) The Appellant is a Company which is in the process of sourcing power under captive basis and it has opted for Renewable Energy Certificate (REC). (b) The Hubli Electricity Supply Company Limited, (HESCOM) the 3rd Respondent, is a Distribution Licensee. (c) The State Commission by the Order dated 9.6.2005 had determined the Wheeling and Banking Charges at 5% and 2% respectively of the energy injected into the Grid for Mini-Hydel and Wind Generators. Further to avail the banking facility, the Generator had to pay the difference of UI charges prevailing at the time of injection and drawal of electricity. (d) The Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (C...
Har Swaroop Sharma, Delhi Vs. the Govt. of Nct of Delhi Through the Ch ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: May-30-2014
V. Ajay Kumar, Member (J). 1. This OA has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following main reliefs: Quash the entire proceedings of the I.O and charge memo dated 03.04.2006, Impugned order dated 24.05.2012 and dated 27.11.12, allow the O.A. with cost. Direct the respondents to grant ACP-1st and MACP 2nd benefits w.e.f. 27.02.2003 and 27.02.2011 respectively with all the benefits. 2. The respondents issued a Charge Memorandum dated 03.04.2006 (Annexure 3 Colly.) to the applicant, which contains the following Charge: ARTICLE I SHRI, HAR SWAROOP, T.G.T. GBSSS-NO.1, GHONDA, SHAHADRA, DELHI while working in the said School had claimed Rs.25350/- only (Rs. Twenty Five Thousand, Three Hundred and Fifty Only) as LTC amount for the block year 1994-97 extended up to 1998 in respect of himself and other members of his family for visiting TRIVANDRUM. On verification, the tickets and certificates furnished by the said teacher was found fake. This show...
Rubina Begum, New Delhi Vs. South Delhi Municipal Corporation Through ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: May-30-2014
A.K. Bhardwaj, J 1. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB) respondent No.2 invited applications for the post of Teacher Primary (Urdu) in the year 2007 vide Post Code No.166/2007 in Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD). The applicant applied for the said post and participated in the competitive examination on 15.6.2008. When her name was not included in the list of selected candidates, she made an application under Right to Information Act, 2005 to know the status of her candidature and the marks obtained by her. On 9.1.2009, she got an information that she had secured 128 marks out of 200 while the last candidate got 118 marks out of 200. Being a departmental candidate, the applicant worked out her right for regularization and filed Original Application No.714/2009. The Tribunal allowed the said Original Application in terms of the Order dated 20.8.2010 and directed the respondents to consider her candidature by giving age relaxation. The Order of the Tribunal was challeng...
Power Company of Karnataka Limited and Others Vs. M/S. Himatsingka Sei ...
Court: Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL Appellate Jurisdiction
Decided on: May-29-2014
M. Karpaga Vinayagam, Chairperson. 1. This is an Application to condone the delay of 290 days in filing the Appeal as against the Impugned Order dated 14.2.2013 passed by the Karnataka State Commission. 2. The Power Company of Karnataka Limited and Others are the Applicants/Appellants. 3. The First Applicant is a Special Purpose Vehicle which undertakes certain duties of facilitating procurement of power. The 2nd and 6th Applicants are the Distribution Licensees in their respective designated areas. 4. M/s. Himatsingka Seide Ltd and the others are the Respondents. 5. The Respondents are the Generators. The Respondents filed the Petitions in OP No.40 of 2010 and OP No.41 of 2010 for seeking determination of tariff by the State Commission for the supply of electricity made by the various generators including the Respondents in compliance with the Government Order dated 3.4.2010 passed u/s 11 (1) of the Electricity Act, 2003. 6. The State Commission disposed of the said Petitions by the c...
Naresh Kumar, Delhi and Others Vs. Chief Secretary Govt. of N.C.T. of ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: May-29-2014
V. Ajay Kumar, Member (J): 1. Heard the learned counsel for the applicants. 2. M.A. No.1624/2014 filed under Rule 4(5)(a) of C.A.T. (Procedure) Rules, 1987 for joining together, is allowed. 3. In the present original application filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicants have sought issuance of directions to the respondents to regularize their services by formulating one time policy in view of the judgments of the Honble High Court and Honble Supreme Court and further by considering the decisions of the other States, which have regularized the services of the contractual employees. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the respondents appointed the applicants as Staff Nurse in G.T.B., Dilshad Garden, Delhi on contract basis and have been continuing in such capacity for quite long. According to him, the initial appointment of the applicants was based on an interview. He submitted that once the Government of Jammu and Kashmir could tak...
Ex. Sigmn Surendra Bahadur Singh Vs. the Chief of the Army Staff and O ...
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: May-29-2014
R.C. Mishra Member (J): 1. By virtue of section 34 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007, brought into force w.e.f. 07.08. 2009, this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, pending before the High Court of Delhi, stood transferred to this Tribunal. It was filed on 20th April, 2009 for issuance of (i) a writ/order in the nature of Mandamus commanding respondent no.1 to treat the petitioner as having continued in service with all consequential benefits and (ii) a writ of Certiorari to quash the impugned proceedings of SCM (Summary Court Martial) and the documents connected therewith including the order dated 02.11.2008,passed by the respondent no. 1,rejecting the petitioners Statutory complaint, under Section 164(2) of the Army Act,1950. 2. Background facts may be summarized as under:- The petitioner was enrolled as Signalman in the Indian Army. At the relevant point of time, he was serving in 14 Rapid Signal Regiment. On 21.03.2007,he was tried and convicted on his p...
Manjit Singh and Others Vs. National Capital Territory of Delhi, Throu ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: May-29-2014
(Oral). V. Ajay Kumar, Member (J). 1. Heard the learned counsel for the applicants. 2. M.A. No.1648/2014 filed under Rule 4(5)(a) of C.A.T. (Procedure) Rules, 1987 for joining together, is allowed. 3. In the present original application filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicants have sought issuance of directions to the respondents to formulate a policy to regularize their services in view of the judgments of the Honble High Court and Honble Supreme Court and further by considering the decisions of the other States, which have regularized the services of the contractual employees. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the respondents appointed the applicants as Paramedical Staff in Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital of Govt. of NCT of Delhi on contract basis and have been continuing in such capacity for quite long. According to him, the initial appointment of the applicants was based on an interview. He submitted that once the Governmen...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »