|
Advanced Search Options
Indian Laws - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 68 Records
-
2013 (10) TMI 1578
... ...
... ... ..... as the primary authority and there is provision for further appeal or revision or review it cannot be said that the said order suffers from any illegality. In the case at hand, there is no denial of the fact that the UPSEB has passed the order for deduction of 10% pension from the delinquent employee. Under the Regulations which we have reproduced hereinbefore there is a stipulation that an appeal or representation, as the case may be, from the order of the Chairman shall lie to the UPSEB. The Regulation clearly provides that in case of an Assistant Engineer the Chairman is the competent authority to pass the order of punishment and, therefore, by virtue of the order passed by the UPSEB remedy of appeal was denied to the delinquent employee. Under these circumstances, the view expressed by the High Court has to be regarded as flawless and, accordingly, we concur with the same. 22. Consequently, the appeal, being devoid of merit, stands dismissed without any order as to costs.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1573
... ...
... ... ..... eof has not occasioned any failure of justice. The other issue that the witness examined under section 200 Cr.P.C. did not fall among those enumerated in the petition of complaint, in my view, does not affect the jurisdiction of the Court to examine such witness produced by the complainant in support of his case. It is not the requirement of law that names of all witnesses are to be exhaustively stated in the petition of complaint. Examination of a witness produced by the complainant, though not named in the petition of complainant, cannot be said illegal in law. The petitioners would get an opportunity to cross-examine such witness in the course of enquiry under section 244 Cr.P.C. and accordingly I am of the view that examination of such witness though not in named in the petition of complaint does not cause any prejudice to them in any manner whatsoever. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in the instant application. The application is accordingly dismissed.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1570
... ...
... ... ..... sis on which the computation had been made so that it could reconcile the accounts. We think it appropriate to direct that the computation sheets shall be provided to the Appellant within three weeks and it shall file its objection within two weeks there from and thereafter the Competent Authority shall fix a date for reconciliation of the accounts. However, regard being had to the fact that the Act is a piece of social welfare legislation, we direct the Appellant to deposit a further sum of Rs. 16,00,000/- within a period of four weeks from today. If the amount is not deposited within the time stipulated hereinabove, the entire amount would be leviable and the right to file objection shall stand extinguished. 30. Consequently, the appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent and the judgment and order passed by the Division Bench and that of the learned single Judge of the High Court are set aside. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1567
... ...
... ... ..... ements made by a senior officer of ONGC. Therefore, we are constrained to observe that the respondents had miserably failed to explain more than three years and four months’ delay and the High Court committed serous error by entertaining and allowing the application for condonation of delay. In the result, the appeal is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the application filed by the respondents before the High Court for condonation of three years and more than four months’ delay is dismissed. As a sequel to this, the appeal filed by the respondents under Section 54 of the Act is dismissed as barred by time. With a view to ensure that the appellant is not fleeced by middlemen, we issue the following directions i) The appellant shall furnish his bank account number to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 within a period of six weeks. ii) Within next 2-1/2 months, the concerned authority shall deposit the amount of compensation etc. in the bank account of the appellant.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1566
... ...
... ... ..... rprint and handwriting experts or forensic questioned documents examiners, who are qualified and skilled to practice this profession on full time basis. The State Governments should check their qualifications and credentials and confirm their credibility in this field. A register of such practitioners should be drawn and rules be framed. A Code of ethics and conduct for their working should also be framed. Besides this, regulatory authority comprising of qualified concerned registered professionals and others related to field be also established to deal with the situations where there are conflicting opinions of experts and the consensus opinion of the Board of experts under the supervision of expert regulatory authority should be binding on the contesting parties. Copy of this order be sent to the Administrative Secretaries of the Departments of Justice and Home Affairs of the States of Punjab, Haryana and Union Territory, Chandigarh for compliance. To come up on 28.02.2014.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1564
... ...
... ... ..... compensation as awarded in this judgment in favour of the claimant after deducting the amount fastened upon the doctors in this judgment with interest @ 6% per annum. 153. The Civil Appeal No. 2866/2012 filed by the claimant-Dr. Kunal Saha is also partly allowed and the finding on contributory negligence by the National Commission on the part of the claimant is set aside. The direction of the National Commission to deduct 10% of the awarded amount of compensation on account of contributory negligence is also set aside by enhancing the compensation from Rs. 1,34,66,000/- to Rs. 6,08,00,550/- with 6% interest per annum from the date of the complaint to the date of the payment to the claimant. 154. The AMRI Hospital is directed to comply with this judgment by sending demand draft of the compensation awarded in this appeal to the extent of liability imposed on it after deducting the amount, if any, already paid to the claimant, within eight weeks and submit the compliance report.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1561
Trade Union Registration obtained by fraud or mistake - Minimum Number of Workers required for Registration - Powers of Registrar to Cancel Registration - The petitioner received a certificate of registration under Trade Union Regulations, 1927.Soon thereafter, 88 workers of the 4th respondent submitted individual letters informing the 3rd respondent that they were not the members of the Union, their I.D. Cards and other documents were obtained without their knowledge and were used for the purpose of registration of the Trade Union. The 4th respondent submitted representations to the Management that they had no knowledge of the registration of the Union by the so called office bearers, which needed urgent enquiry to ascertain the real facts; and a proper enquiry should be made regarding membership of the petitioner Union, and their registration cancelled.
HELD THAT:- The petitioner's Certificate of Registration was cancelled, is set aside. Sec.9A of the Act relates to the minimum requirement of membership of a Trade Union and, thereunder, a registered Trade Union of workmen shall at all times continue to have not less than ten per cent, or one hundred of the workmen. Sec.10 of the Act relates to cancellation of registration and, thereunder, a certificate of registration of a Trade Union may be withdrawn or cancelled by the Registrar. As the petitioner Union was neither put on notice nor were they informed of the proposal to cancel their registration under Sect.10(b) of the Act, the requirement of affording the petitioner Union a reasonable opportunity to show cause, as stipulated under the proviso to Section 10 of the Act, cannot be said to have been complied with.
Sec.4(1) of the Act obligated the Registrar to ascertain whether the Petitioner-Union had the minimum required strength of 10% of the workmen, or 100 workers, in the establishment of the 4th respondent on the date of its registration. He ought to have verified whether the 88 workmen, who submitted a representation to him, were never the member of the Petitioner Union, and registration of the Union was obtained by fraud; or they had disassociated themselves from the petitioner Union between the date of the submission of the application and the date of registration of the Union.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1560
... ...
... ... ..... oceed on or find the petitioners to be wilful defaulters. WP No. 865 of 2013 is allowed by setting aside the decision of the Grievance Redressal Committee reflected in the notice of May 27, 2013 and by setting aside the decision of the screening committee of the bank as reflected in the minutes of the meeting held on January 8, 2013, limited to the case of the petitioners. However, the bank is left free to start the process afresh in accordance with law by adhering strictly to the procedure as laid down in clause 3 of the RBI Master Circular. Since the bank had been put on notice at the initial stage and before affidavits were called for, that costs would follow if the bank could not sustain its decision on the basis of the procedure as recognised in the Master Circular, the bank will pay costs assessed at 300 GM to the petitioners. Certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be urgently supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1559
... ...
... ... ..... to be rejected by this Court is the contention. 4. In the light of the fact that even as per the communications produced along with the application in IA.No.1/2013 since the petitioner-company has not shown their bonafides by making any payments, the question of this Court extending the time to the petitioner to pay the amount would not arise. However, taking note of the exchange of correspondences between the petitioner and respondent No.2 and that respondent No.2 had indicated that the settlement could be possible in the terms as indicated therein, it would be open for the petitioner to make substantial payments out of the said amount to respondent No.2 and thereafter request respondent No.2 for time to pay the balance amount and in such event it is for the respondent No.2 to consider such representation as per procedure. With the said liberty, the petition stands disposed of. In view of disposal of the main petition, the application in IA.No.1/2013 also stands disposed of.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1557
... ...
... ... ..... the plaint makes it clear that the same is vexatious and meritless. The plaint and the accompanying documents clearly show that in the period from 1993 to 1996 plaintiff had full knowledge about the flat in question having been taken over by defendant No. 2 and having been sold to defendant No. 3. She has chosen not to take any step at that stage but has woken up almost 15-16 years later to file the present suit claiming declaration, possession and injunction. The plaint stresses on the communications received from DDA in 2009 to 2010, trying to camouflage the real issues i.e. documents allegedly executed by the plaintiff in favour of defendant No. 2 and by DDA in favour of defendant No. 4. There is clearly merit in the application of defendant No. 4. The application is allowed. CS(OS) 509/2011 In view of the above orders passed in IA No. 5642/2011 under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, the suit is dismissed as barred by limitation. All other pending applications also stand disposed of.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1556
... ...
... ... ..... olved in the criminal cases relied on by the detaining authority, does not in any manner invalidate the order of detention issued against the detenu in this case. 18. Insofar as the contention that the offences are not grave enough to initiate proceedings under the Act is concerned, we must first of all say that Section 2(j) of the Act defines 'goonda' and it includes 'depredator of environment'. The expression 'depredator of environment' is defined under Section 2(g) of the Act and the offences, which are charged against the detenu, are squarely covered by this definition. The depredation of environment is a penal offence and is certainly grave one and therefore, we are not prepared to accept the contention of the petitioner that the offences are not grave enough justifying an order of preventive detention. In the result, we do not find any substance in any of the contentions raised by the petitioner. Therefore, the writ petition will stand dismissed.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1555
... ...
... ... ..... ssessee and fixed the hearing on 20.03.2013. It is the obligation of the assessee to appear before the ld. CIT or file reply to the notice. The assessee neither appeared before the ld. CIT nor filed any reply. Moreover, the assessment order could not speak about whether the assessee HUF’s father was assessed to tax or not. Therefore, in our opinion and to meet the ends of justice, we set aside the order passed by the ld. CIT and remit the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT to consider the issue afresh by considering the explanation of the assessee in accordance with law after allowing sufficient opportunity of hearing to the assessee. We also direct the assessee to file explanation before the ld. CIT. The ld. CIT may also consider the decision in the case of Addl.CIT v. Durgamma (supra) while deciding the issue afresh. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced on Wednesday, the 30th of October, 2013 at Chennai.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1547
... ...
... ... ..... ide. In the present case there is nothing on record to suggest that the unqualified and unconditional apology tendered by the Appellant in his reply before the High Court was actuated by reasons that are not bona fide. 12. It has also been noticed by us that the writ petition in which the interim order dated 18.08.2011 came to be passed has been finally terminated by an order dated 30.10.2012 dismissing the writ petition and also that the said order has attained finality in law. This is another relevant circumstance that cannot be ignored though we should not be understood to be saying that all cases of dismissal of the writ petition, by itself, would absolve a contemnor of the charge of commission of contempt in respect of an interim order passed while the writ petition had remained pending. 13. In view of the aforesaid, we are unable to sustain the order dated 23.07.2012 passed by the High Court. We accordingly set aside the said order dated 23.07.2012 and allow the appeal.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1529
... ...
... ... ..... he plaint, by supplying advance copy of the amended plaint, limited to the said aspect, to the counsel for the appellant/defendant or to the appellant/defendant within four weeks of today. The amended plaint be filed before the Trial Court on the date of first appearance of the parties before the Trial Court. The appellant/defendant to, on the same day file written statement to the amended plaint, confining the response to the amended paragraphs. The Trial Court to thereafter proceed to record evidence and decide the said issue. 16. The parties to appear before the Addl. District Judge, Central-14 on 7th December, 2013. The Trial Court file be forthwith returned to the Trial Court. 17. The appellant/defendant to continue to deposit the amount subject to deposit of which the interim order was granted in this appeal, in this Court. 18. The appeal to be listed after the findings with reasons have been received back from the Trial Court. RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J OCTOBER 8, 2013 pp..
-
2013 (10) TMI 1521
... ...
... ... ..... matters and appeals arising out of the verdicts of the court martial to provide for quicker and less expensive justice to the Members of the said armed forces of the Union. The Preamble of the Act provides for adjudication or trial by the Tribunal of justice and compliance in respect of many a matter. As we find the Tribunal has been conferred powers to deal with the cases in promptitude. Promptitude does not ostracise or drives away the apposite exposition of facts and necessary ratiocination. A seemly depiction of factual score, succinct analysis of facts and law, pertinent and cogent reasoning in support of the view expressed having due regard to the rational methodology, in our considered opinion, are imperative. We have said so as we find that the Tribunal by the impugned order has not adverted to the necessitous facts. We say so despite sustaining the verdict. 66. Ex consequenti, the appeal, being sans merit, stands dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1510
... ...
... ... ..... al jurisdiction of the Principal Bench and the Lucknow Bench of this Court have been determined. (2) The principle of law enunciated by the two Division Benches of this Court in the case of Dr. Balram Dutt Sharma and Sanjay Somani that for deciding the territorial jurisdiction, it is the location of the Court which has passed the impugned order or where the proceedings are pending, which shall be the determinative factor is totally against the provisions and object of the Clause 14 of the Amalgamation Order, 1948 and the judgement of the Apex Court in Nasiruddin (supra) and para 14 of U.P. Rashtriya Chini Mill Adhikari Parishad, Lucknow (supra). 55. Thus, in view of the above, we have no hesitation in holding that the Division Benches of this Court in the cases of Dr. Balram Dutt Sharma and Sanjay Somani (supra) do not lay down the correct law on the issue. 56. Reference is answered accordingly. The matters are now remitted to the learned Single Judge for decision on merits.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1508
... ...
... ... ..... 21.9.2006, viz., from the date of filing of the suit. However, while passing the impugned order, the High Court has used the language that the case stood transferred from the Mehsana court to the court at Surat and, therefore, interest has to be paid from the date of initiation of the suit at Mehsana i.e. from 1986 and in view thereof, allowed the claim. 19. We are of the considered view that once the plaint was presented before the Civil Court at Surat, it was a fresh suit and cannot be considered to be continuation of the suit instituted at Mehsana. The Plaintiff/Respondent cannot be permitted to take advantage of its own mistake instituting the suit before a wrong court. The judgment and order impugned cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 20. In view of the above, appeals are allowed. The judgment and decree impugned are set aside. The judgments and orders of the Trial/Executing Court as well as of the Appellate Court are restored. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1507
... ...
... ... ..... f the Government of Punjab in the Department of Revenue and Rehabilitation, same reads as follows In exercise of the power conferred by Clause (f) of Section 58 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (Central Act No. 4 of 1882) and all other powers enabling him in this behalf, the Governor of Punjab is pleased to specify Gobindgarh in the district Fatehgarh Sahib and Mohali in District Roop Nagar in the State of Punjab as Towns for the purpose of the aforesaid section of the said Act. 23. This aspect of the matter has not been considered by the High Court in the impugned judgment. As the same goes to the root of the matter, we have no option than to set aside the impugned order and remit the matter back for its fresh consideration in accordance with law in the light of the observation made above. 24. In the result, we allow this appeal, set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and remit the matter back to the High Court for fresh consideration in accordance with law.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1504
... ...
... ... ..... . had raised a plea that they could not have taken part in the second tender since their production capacity was only 25 metric tonnes a month as per the certificate issued on November 29, 1995 by National Small Industries Corporation Limited (A Government of India Enterprises). Though, we had not accepted that plea, it will have to be considered that their production capacity is also not comparable to the production capacity and the size of the other two appellants. We would, therefore, chose to reduce their penalty to the 1/10th of the penalty awarded by the CCI. Their penalty would therefore come to ₹ 15.70/- lakhs. In the result, therefore, the finding by the CCI in respect of breach of the provisions of Competition Act is confirmed and the appeals are dismissed. However, the penalties would be modified to the extent we have ordered in the earlier paragraphs. All the three appeals are disposed of on these lines. Pronounced in open Court on 29th day of October, 2013
-
2013 (10) TMI 1485
... ...
... ... ..... (d) Right of appeal under the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. is available in all cases where the judgments are rendered after 31/12/2009. (e) In case of acquittal in a private complaint by the Sessions Court, if the complainant is also the victim, he has a statutory right of appeal as per proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. and the stipulation in Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. to obtain special leave may not apply in such a case. Hence, it is held that in all cases where the judgment is rendered after 31/12/2009, appeal lies to the Court made mention of under the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. The Registry will return the records to the respective parties to enable them to prefer appeals before the appropriate forum. If they so choose to file appeals within a month from the date of this order before the competent forum, the time during which the matter was pending before this Court will be taken note of in applying Section 14 of the Limitation Act. These matters are disposed of as above.
|
