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.
Narender Singh, Delhi and Others Vs. Upsc, New Delhi and Others
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: May-29-2014
Ashok Kumar, Member (A): 1. The present OAs bearing Nos.3080 of 2013, 3155 of 2013, 3165 of 2013, 3219 of 2013, 3171 of 2013, 3250 of 2013, 3251 of 2013, 3663 of 2013 and 3269 of 2013 have been heard together on the request of counsel for the parties on the ground that the issues and reliefs claimed in these OAs are identical. Common arguments were made by the counsel of both sides in the aforenoted cases. The respondents are also common. In view of above, we are disposing of all these OAs by this common order. The leading case adopted for considering the pleadings as well as documents is OA No.3080/2013. OA No.3080 of 2013 2. The applicants, who are serving as PGT/TGT under the Directorate of Education (DOE), Govt. of NCT of Delhi (GNCT) are aggrieved by the action of the respondents in not allowing them to appear in the interview for appointment to the post of Principal, DOE, GNCT. 3. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that Respondent No.1 issued advertisement for appointment to t...
Hritikesh Arun Nazre and Another Vs. Municipal Commissioner, Nashik Mu ...
Court: National Green Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: May-28-2014
1. This is an Application filed by two Applicants, seeking certain reliefs stated as below: a). œThat the Honble Tribunal be pleased to call the paper in procedure relating to constitution, formulation and particulars about the tree committee and its decision and after perusing the same be pleased to declare that the tree committee itself is illegal and its decision of cutting approx. 3500 trees in the city of Nashik is itself ultra-virus and void ab-initio. b). The mandatory direction to form the proper and legal tree authority, c). The Respondent No.1 and 2 be restrained from implementing the alleged illegal decision of the tree committee for cutting approx. 3500 trees within Nashik. d). That mandatory direction to perform immediate tree-census and audit before cutting any tree be given.? 2. The Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 are the Authorities of Nashik Municipal Corporation. The reply affidavit has been filed on their behalf. According to them the stand taken by Respondent Nos. 1 to...
Dinesh Kumar, Delhi Vs. B.K. Gupta, General Manager, Baroda House, New ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: May-28-2014
(Oral). George Paracken, Member (J): 1. This Contempt Petition has been filed for the alleged non implementation of the order of this Tribunal dated 22.11.2013 in OA No.3845/2013. The said order reads as under :- According to the applicants counsel similar case i.e. OA No.2965/2013 is listed for hearing on 29.11.2013. Accordingly, issue notice to the respondents in this case also returnable on the same date i.e., 29.11.2013. Meanwhile, no adverse action shall be taken against the applicant pursuant to the impugned letter dated 09.10.2013. Order dasti. 2. According to the applicant, after the aforesaid order has been passed and in violation of the same, the respondents have issued Memorandum No.E-142/809/S.Cell/P dated 27.03.2014 proposing to hold an enquiry against him under Rule 9 of Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968. 3. In our considered view, the aforesaid Memorandum is not an adverse order against the applicant. We, therefore, do not find any merit in this Contem...
M/S. Enzal Chemicals (India) Limited and Another Vs. Commissioner of C ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad
Decided on: May-28-2014
M.V. Ravindran, J. 1. All these three stay petitions are being disposed of by a common order as they arising against the order-in-original passed which confirmed demand of Rs. 1.59 Crores and Rs. 11.62 Lakhs, interest thereof and penalties on all the appellants. 2. The said amount of Rs. 1.59 Crores has been calculated as an amount of 10% of the value of exempted goods manufactured and cleared by availing CENVAT credit of common inputs while the demand of Rs. 11.62 Lakhs is in respect of ineligible CENVAT credit availed. 3. After hearing both sides at length for sometime on the stay petitions, we are of the view that appeals themselves could be disposed of at this juncture as the issue lies in a narrow compass. Accordingly, considering the amount already deposited by the appellants as enough deposit, we take up the appeals for disposal after waiving the condition of pre-deposit of the balance amounts involved. 4. On perusal of the records, we find that the issue involved in this case i...
Ashu, Noida and Others Vs. Union of India (Represented by Secretary to ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: May-28-2014
Shekhar Agarwal, Member (A). All these O.As are identical and hence are being disposed of by this common order. For the sake of convenience, facts of OA-3396/2013 are being discussed. This has been filed seeking the following relief:- (i). Call for records leading to Office Memorandum 21/13 (Ref: HRD/R/02 dated 06.08.2013 annexed herein as ANNEXURE A1; and quash and aside ANNEXURE-A1 as being arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles, 14,16,19 and 21 of the Constitution. Call for records leading to Letter No. 1(2)/2013-HR dated 10.09.2013 and e-mail communication dated 24.10.2013 annexed herein as ANNEXURE-A7; and quash and aside ANNEXURE-A7 as being arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles, 14, 16, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. Direct the Second and Third Respondents to extend the contracts of the Applicants on the expiry of their present contracts on the strength of the annual performance reports. Direct the Second and Third Respondents to consider the case of the Applicants ...
Dr. Sudhakar Sharma Vs. U.Oi. and Others
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: May-28-2014
V.N. Gaur, Member (A). 1. The applicant was appointed as Secretary, Lalit Kala Akademi (LKA) on 03.04.2001. He was suspended through an order dated 14.02.2013 issued by Assistant Secretary (Admn.) of LKA with the approval of the Chairman, LKA, Sh. K.K.Chakravarty, who took over the charge of the post on 13.02.2013 as per respondents version. That suspension order was revoked by another order of same date, i.e., 14.02.2013 signed by Shri K.R.Subbanna, Acting Chairman, LKA who according to the applicant was legally authorized to exercise the powers of Chairman, LKA since the new Chairman Sh. K.K.Chakravorty joined his office on 15.02.2013. Otherwise also, the suspension order dated 14.02.2013 had not been reviewed within 90 days of the date of issue of that order, and therefore, it automatically lapsed after the expiry of 90 days. The respondents, however, by an order dated 14.06.2013 revoked the suspension order and issued a fresh suspension order on the same date after the matter had b...
Rama Nand Vs. A.K. Sachan Divisional Railway Manager, New Delhi
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: May-28-2014
(Oral). G. George Paracken, Member (J). 1. This Contempt Petition has been filed by the petitioner alleging non-compliance of the Order of this Tribunal dated 3.1.2013 in OA 4031/2012. The operative part of the said Order reads as under:- 7. Turning to the other contentions of the respondents that Rule 219 (M) duly protects the interest of employees who are on deputation abroad. In this connection, we pertinently note that the applicant has been admittedly appointed on deputation to Mozambique from 11.3.2008 to 27.4.2011. Pleadings are amply clear on the factual aspect that on his return from Mozambique, the applicant was posted to New Delhi on 07.05.2011. It is also the admitted position that the notice for adjudging the suitability for the purpose of promotion to the post of Sr. PWS of various Mates/Keymen was issued only after the applicant had already returned from Mozambique. Therefore, the applicant was also duly entitled to be considered and promoted to the post in question as p...
Sreeranganathan K.P., Sreepadam Vadakkkekkottaram (H) and Others Vs. t ...
Court: National Green Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: May-28-2014
M. Chockalingam, Judicial Member) Appeal No. 172 of 2013 (SZ) This appeal has been preferred by the appellant herein against the order of the 1st respondent, Ministry of Environment and Forests (for short MoEF) dated 18.11.2013, granting Environmental Clearance (for short EC) to the 4th respondent, M/s. KGS Aranmula Air Port Ltd., to set up an airport at Mallappuzhasserry, Aranmula and Kidangannur villages in Kozencherry taluk of Pathanamthitta District, Kerala. A writ petition has also been filed in W.P. (C). No. 6004 of 2012 challenging the notification issued by the 2nd respondent, the State of Kerala declaring the area as an industrial area and the said writ petition is still pending before the Honble High Court of Kerala. The brief facts of the appeal filed herein are stated as follows: 2. The proposed airport is being set up by the 4th respondent on the banks of the holy river Pampa, in an ecologically sensitive and environmentally diverse and rich area. Aranmula is a declared he...
Birendra Singh and Another Vs. Union of India Through the Secretary, N ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: May-28-2014
(Oral). G. George Paracken, Member (J). 1. The Applicants in this joint Original Application filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 challenged the impugned Annexure A-1 letter dated 15.02.2012 issued to the Applicant No.1 by the Respondent No.2, namely, the Office of the Custodian, The Special Court (TORTS) Act, 1992, Banking Division (Department of Financial Services), Ministry of Finance, New Delhi. By the aforesaid letter his request for transfer of the amount in his GPF Account and counting his past service under Rule 13 and 25 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 and FR 54 and 54A has been rejected for the following reasons:- (i). Your services have been terminated from this office and you have been re-employed in the office of Debt Recovery Tribunal, Chandigarh on the instructions of Honble Cats order dated 09.12.2005. In the said order, there are not instructions regarding counting of your previous service in this office. However, you may apply your current...
Bharat, New Delhi Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, New Delhi and Anoth ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: May-28-2014
(Oral). Ashok Kumar, Member (A): 1. This Original Application has been filed by the applicant against the show cause notice dated 24.08.2013 issued by the respondent no.2 by which the applicant has been required to show cause as to why his appointment should not be terminated under Para 9(b) of the Executive Instructions. According to the applicant, he has been working as a Driver with respondent no.2 since 12.03.2009. However, he was restrained from performing the duties w.e.f. 24.5.2013. He gave his representation to the same but despite the receipt of the representation, the respondents issued Show Cause Notice dated 24.8.2013. He has filed the present OA wherein following reliefs have been sought:- i). set aside the impugned show cause notice No.SPD/PFC (DR)/2013/5221 dated 24.08.2013 (Annexure-A-1) passed by respondents and direct them to allow applicant to continue his duty in the department; ii). direct the respondents to call for verification report of the driving licence No.M-...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »