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.
Bihar Chamber of Commerce Vs. Bihar Electricity Regulatory Commission ...
Court: Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL Appellate Jurisdiction
Decided on: May-28-2014
Surendra Kumar, Judicial Member. 1. The Appeal No. 131 of 2012 has been preferred by the Appellant under Section 111 of the Electricity Act, 2003 against the Order dated 30.3.2012 passed by the Bihar Electricity Regulatory Commission (hereinafter called the State Commission) in the Tariff Petition, being Case No. TP 02 of 2011 approving the Annual Revenue Requirement (ARR) and Appeal No. 131 of 2012 Retail Supply Tariff (RST) for the Financial Year 2012-13 of Bihar State Electricity Board (hereinafter called the Electricity Board), Respondent No.2 in this Appeal, the distribution licensee in the State of Bihar. 2. Facts of the case giving rise to Appeal No. 131 of 2012. The relevant facts of the case, relating to Appeal No. 131 of 2012, are as follows: 2.1 that the Appellant is an association of industries and traders who are taking supply of electricity from the Electricity Board (Respondent No.2) under different category i.e. low-tension, high-tension, etc from the electrical system ...
Bharti Papnai Pandey, Delhi Vs. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection B ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: May-28-2014
(Oral). V. Ajay Kumar, Member (J). 1. Heard the learned counsel for the applicants. 2. M.A. 2193/2013 filed under Rule 4(5)(a) of C.A.T. (Procedure) Rules, 1987, for joining together, is allowed. 3. The O.A. is filed seeking a direction to the respondents to consider the representations of the applicants vide Annexure A-5 (Colly.) seeking grant of age relaxations issued under various orders of the Govt. of India and under Govt. of NCT of Delhi being women or resource persons of SSA, as the case may be, in connection with the Advertisement No.01/12 for the post of Special Educator (Primary) in MCD, Post Code No. 01/12, as their applications made in pursuance of the said Advertisement have been rejected, on the ground of overage, without assigning any specific reasons. 4. In the circumstances, the O.A. is disposed of, at the admission stage itself, without going into the other merits of the case, by directing the 2nd Respondent to consider the representations of the applicants and to pas...
Bijay Kumar Verma Vs. Consortium for Education Communication, New Delh ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: May-28-2014
(Oral). G. George Paracken, Member (J): 1. The applicant has filed this OA against the order dated 7.5.2013 passed by the Consortium for Education Communication (An Inter University Centre of University Grants Commission on Electronic Media) IUAC (NSC) Campus, Aruna Asaf Ali Marg, New Delhi and Director Governing Board Consortium for Educational Communication (An Inter University Centre of University Grants Commission on Electronic Media) IUAC (NSC) Campus, Aruna Asaf Ali Marg, New Delhi and others. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the applicant on the question of jurisdiction to entertain this Original Application. He agreed that the respondent Consortium for Education Communication is not a notified Organisation under Section 14 (2) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 which reads as under:- (2). The Central Government may, by notification, apply with effect from such date as may be specified in the notification the provisions of sub-section (3) to local or other authorities...
Dharmendra Kumar (Staff Nurse), New Delhi Vs. Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: May-28-2014
V. Ajay Kumar, Member (J): 1. The applicant, who is working as Staff Nurse in the Sardar Vallababhai Patel Hospital, New Delhi, filed the present OA questioning the Order dated 08.08.2013 (Annexure A1) of the Tehsildar/Executive Magistrate (Seelampur) in directing him to surrender his OBC Certificate dated 14.01.2010 (sic. 4.01.2010) which was cancelled by Order dated 03.05.2012, to his office. 2. It is submitted that the applicant hails from Village, Kolida, District Sikar, Rajasthan and belongs to Jaat Community which is recognized as Backward Class. On his application, in pursuance of an Advertisement No.004/2009 issued by the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB, in short), he was selected to the post of Staff Nurse under OBC category, and accordingly, he joined at Sardar Vallabhabai Patel Hospital, New Delhi. 3. It is further submitted that the Tehsildar/ Executive Magistrate, Seelampur, Delhi vide the impugned Annexure A1 Order dated 08.08.2013, while informing that ...
Naveen Kumar Sharma, New Delhi Vs. Union of India Through the Secretar ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: May-28-2014
V. Ajay Kumar, Member (J): 1. The present RA is filed by the applicant under Section 22(3)(f) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 read with Rule 17 of the CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987, seeking to review the Order dated 06.03.2014 passed by this Tribunal in OA No.323/2013. 3. The scope and power of this Tribunal under Section 22(3)(f) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 is limited and akin to the power of a Civil Court under Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC. As per the settled principles of law while exercising the power of review, correction of an erroneous view taken earlier is not permissible. 4. The Honble Apex Court in Ajit Kumar Rath v. State of Orissa and Others - (1999) 9 SCC 596 held that power of review available to the Tribunal under Section 22(3)(f) is not absolute and is the same as given to a Court under S. 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC.. It has further held that the scope of review is limited to correction of a patent error of law or fact ...
M/S. General Motors Pvt. Ltd., M/S Chevrolet Sales India Pvt.Ltd. Vs. ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad
Decided on: May-27-2014
M.V. Ravindran, J. 1. All these Stay Petitions are being disposed of by a common order as these are concerning the same issue and are from the very same assessee. 2. After hearing both sides for some time on the Stay Petitions, we find that the appeals themselves could be dispose at this juncture. Accordingly, we take up the appeals for disposal after disposing of the Stay Petitions. 3. On perusal of the records, we find that the issue involved in this case is regarding differential duty payable by the appellant as regards valuation of the final products cleared by them. It is the grievance of the appellant that they were not effectively heard by the adjudicating authority before passing order in all these appeals. On perusal of the records, we find that the adjudicating authority has granted them one date in respect of 4 appeals and 2 dates in respect of other appeals but did not wait for some more time as the appellant in their response to P.H. notice had claimed that Board is issuin...
Kamlesh Arora, Rohtak (Haryana) Vs. Union of India Through General Man ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: May-27-2014
(Oral). 1. In this Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant has sought issuance of directions to the respondents to pay him an amount of Rs.28,444/- recovered from the commuted value of pension payable to her husband, late Mr.Mulakh Raj Arora. 2. Today when the Original Application came up for hearing, Mr. Lalta Prasad, learned counsel for applicant admitted that the amount has since been paid to the applicant but no interest on said amount has yet been released. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Shailendra Tiwary, learned counsel for respondents submitted that there is no rule regarding payment of interest on the commuted value of pension. 4. I heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the record. 5. There is sufficient merit in the argument put forth by learned counsel for respondents. Besides the commuted value of pension is an amount, which is paid in advance to an employee. In other words, the fraction of amount of pension...
Essar Power Limited Vs. Gujarat State Petronet Limited and Another
Court: Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL Appellate Jurisdiction
Decided on: May-27-2014
M. Karpaga Vinayagam, Chairperson. 1. Essar Power Limited is the Appellant herein. 2. Gujarat State Petronet Ltd. (Gujarat Petronet) is the 1st Respondent. The Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulalatory Board (Petroleum Board) is Respondent No.2. 3. The Appellant has filed this Appeal, on being aggrieved over the Impugned Interim Order dated 27.9.2013 passed by the Petroleum Board, imposing a condition directing the Appellant to the limited extent that the Appellant has to maintain the value of its Letter of Credit equivalent to the outstanding invoices towards œShip or Pay Charges? within a month from the date of the order i.e. 27.09.2013 pending disposal of the complaint, against the Appellant before the Petroleum Board. 4. The short facts are as follows: (a) The Appellant owns a power plant at Hazira (Gujarat) having a capacity of 515 MW. It is a dual fuel plant running on Naphta as well as Natural Gas. The Plant commenced commercial production from 1.10.1997. Till March, 2004, th...
Hemlata Soni, Delhi Vs. the North Delhi Municipal Corporation Through ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: May-27-2014
(Oral). 1. None for the applicant. The Original Application is accordingly taken up for hearing in terms of Rule 15 of CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987. 2. The applicant has filed the present Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 praying therein: That the cost of these proceedings may kindly be granted in favour of the applicant and against the respondent. Pass any other or further order(s) or direction(s) which this Honble Tribunal deems fit, proper and expedite in favour of the applicant and against the respondent, in the interest of justice. 3. In the counter reply filed on behalf of North DMC, it is stated that the case of the applicant would be placed before the Compassionate Appointment Committee in its meeting to be held in the year 2014 along with all other similar cases received during the year 2013 for its consideration in accordance with the instructions issued by the DoPT. The contents of paragraph 4 of the counter reply read as under:- ...
M/S. Sudhir Gensets Ltd Vs. Cce Vapi
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad
Decided on: May-27-2014
M.V. Ravindran, J. 1. This Stay Petition seeks waiver of pre-deposit of the amount confirmed as in-eligible CENVAT Credit, interest thereof and penalties imposed. 2. We propose to dispose of the appeal itself as the issue involved lies in narrow compass, in as much as the first appellate authority has dismissed the appeal for non-compliance of the pre-deposit ordered by him. Accordingly, we dispose of the Stay Petition and take up the appeal for disposal. 3. Heard both sides and perused the records. 4. On perusal of the records, we find that vide Stay Order passed by the first appellate authority which is annexed at Page No.236 (Stay Order No.SRP/120/STAY/VAPI/2013-14, dt.24.10.2013), the first appellate authority has recordedWhile the case is prima facie in favour of the applicant on the basis of the case laws relied upon by the applicant in respect of period prior to amendment in Rule 7 of CCR, the interest of Revenue also needs to be kept in mind. 5. Having recorded the clear-cut fi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »