Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws 2012 2012 2012 (4) Indian Laws - 2012 (4) This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority National Financial Reporting Authority Competition Commission of India ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 3 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

Indian Laws - Case Laws

Showing 41 to 46 of 46 Records

• 2012 (4) TMI 439 - DELHI HIGH COURT
  

  Proceedings against CIT - alleged lapses/irregularities in eight cases - extension of favor to assessee - Charge-memo, the dissenting note recorded by the Disciplinary Authority and the final order imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement - SCN seeking an explanation regarding alleged lapses/irregularities in eight cases completed by him were pertaining to the period of his service - Held that:- The disciplinary authority had not considered the representation of the Respondent No.1 against the disagreement note - the petitioners is unable to point out any single factor or reason which would show that the dissenting note was tentative nor has been able to show why the representation of the Respondent No.1 was not considered by the Disciplinary Authority before imposing the disproportionate punishment of compulsory retirement in the facts and circumstances - On the seven articles of charges framed against Respondent No.1, the Enquiry Officer came to the conclusion that Articles I, II, IV, and VII not proved while Articles III, V and VI partly proved but the Disciplinary Authority ultimately concluded that the "IO's finding has not been found acceptable and the charge has been viewed as 'proved' or 'fully proved' except for Article VI which was held to be substantially proved while only part (a) of the charge was held to be "not proved" – the charges did not contain any allegations that while passing the various orders or conducting the proceedings the Respondent No.1 had malafide intentions or had passed the order on extraneous considerations - decided in favour of respondent with cost of Rs. 30,000.

  ---

• 2012 (4) TMI 424 - DELHI HIGH COURT
  

  RTI Application denied for want of information about some adverse entries allegedly made in the Annual Confidential Report of Ms. Jyoti Balasundram, Member/CESTAT by the President of the CESTAT for the year 2000-01 and follow-up action thereupon - Held that:- Since the petitioner wanted information contained in personal files relating to ACRs, this information was of personal officers viz-a-viz person who is not an employee of the Government of India and seeking such an information as a matter of public was accordingly treated as “third party information” - when “third party” information regarding ACRs was sought, the procedure outlined under Section 11(1) under RTI Act had to be followed i.e. opinion is formed by the CIC that the disclosure of information would be in public interest - the procedure under Section 11(1), which is mandatory has to be followed which includes, giving of notice to the concerned officer information whose ACR is sought for and if that officer pleads private defense that defense has to be examined while deciding the issue - the learned Single Judge has rightly held that except in cases involving overriding public interest, the ACR record of the officer cannot be disclosed - Since the matter was not looked into by the CIC, the learned Single Judge remitted the case back to the CIC – appeal rejected.

  ---

• 2012 (4) TMI 293 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
  

  Whether Provident Fund authorities are justified in adjusting the amount realized from company-in- liquidation towards dues of sister concerns of said company – company seeking refund of same with interest – Held that:- It is found that there is functional integrality and all the establishments has the very same Managing Director who has been managing all the establishments. Therefore, adjustment of amount available to the credit of one of the establishments for realizing the provident fund dues of the other three establishments is not faulted with – Petition dismissed.

  ---

• 2012 (4) TMI 208 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Witness against himself - Issue of summons under section 108 - the petitioner has been formally accused of an offence of smuggling Red Sander Wood to Dubai and to other places, along with certain other accused persons - summons were issued to intimate that attendance of the petitioner is necessary to give evidence and to produce documents or things related to the said acts - petitioner contented that the petitioner has been arrayed as an accused in the criminal case, he cannot be compelled to give evidence in connection with the said case - he further stated that as per clause 3 of Article 20 of the Constitution of India, no person, accused of any offense, shall be compelled to be a witness against himself - no compulsion on the part of the petitioner, to produce the documents and other evidence, which would amount to infringement of the right against self-incrimination - Held that:- it is made clear that the petitioner shall not be compelled by the respondent to give evidence against himself, as he is an accused person in the alleged smuggling activities - However, the evidence obtained during the process of inquiry which had not been obtained by compulsion, could be made use of in the subsequent proceedings initiated against the petitioner or against other persons

  ---

• 2012 (4) TMI 174 - DELHI HIGH COURT
  

  Disciplinary enquiry by ICAI - statutory auditors of Satyam Computers Services Limited - Principles of natural justice - Cross examination of witness - held that:- Considering the fact that the petitioner is entitled to be granted the opportunity to cross examine Sh. A.Y.V. Krishna, - permission granted to grant to the petitioner one, and only one, opportunity to cross examine the other witnesses as well, subject to the conditions. - the report prepared by the Disciplinary Committee dated 03.01.2012 set aside.

  ---

• 2012 (4) TMI 155 - SC ORDER
  

  Authority of President of the ITAT to record the Annual Confidential Reports of the Members – High Court held that President had no power to write the ACRs of the Members and directed Selection Committee to reconsider the claim of the Petitioner on merits de hors the ACRs - aforesaid verdict challenged by Vice President of the Tribunal before the Supreme Court – Held that at interim stage:- To be put up for final disposal on October 03, 2012. During the pendency of the special leave petition, the direction of the High Court in impugned judgment shall remain stayed. See Uttam Bir Singh Bedi vs UOI (2011 - TMI - 207466 - Madras High Court).

  ---

123