Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (1.61 seconds)
Documents citing B. Subba Rao vs Union Of India And Anr. on 11 September, 1985

Milind K. Gaikwad vs Union Of India on 24 February, 2011

Admittedly, in this case, a number of juniors to the Applicants have been promoted but the case of the Applicants have not been considered and we have absolutely no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that there has been infringement of the fundamental rights of the Applicants in non-considering the case of the Applicants for promotions at par with their juniors. If that be so, the Original Application is well-founded and the action of the Respondents are discriminatory, arbitrary and offended the equality clause enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Contrary to the facts in Kubba's case the applicant was allowed to participate in the selection process and he actually did participate. But, unfortunately for the applicant, he was not found meritorious enough to be promoted. The selection process was held in accordance with the rules.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Garware Synthetics vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 13 July, 1999

5. Regarding penalty imposed on other appellants, the learned Advocate submitted that the Department had invoked Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules for imposing penalty on the Directors of NCNPL; that Rule 9(2) cannot be invoked against them as under the said rule, penalty can be imposed only on the producer, or manufacturer; that similarly penalty cannot be imposed on the Directors under Rule 52A. He, further, contended that penalty can also not be imposed on the Directors under Rule 173 of the Central Excise Rules as the said rule provides for action only against manufacturer, producer or warehouse owner. Reliance was placed on the decision in the case of B. Subba Rao v. UOI and Ors., 1987 (32) E.L.T. 648 (A.P.)
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 3 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Kays International vs Collector Of Customs on 9 September, 1999

Reliance was also placed on the decision in the case of B. Subba Rao v. U.O.I. -1987 (32) E.L.T. 648 (A.P.). He, further, submitted that it was M/s. Kays International which placed order for importation of the impugned goods; letter of authority was given to them by Swastika Fashions; they approached the clearing agent and on their instance, one letter of authority was given to Wadhwa whose address was only given by appellant No. 2; that goods made out of imported material were sold to them; that original DEEC Book was with Kays International as per the statement dated 20-11-1984 of Shri V.M. Mai that who also deposed that H.S. Wadhwa is Kays International's man and he only happened to know Wadhwa's name from face of photocopy of letter of authority given and filled in by Kays International. The learned DR, further, submitted that it was M/s. Kays International who were controlling the goods which is apparent from letter dated 25-9-1984 of Swastika Fashion addressed to appellant No. 1. It was mentioned in the letter that though the goods had been imported and cleared by Kays International, no goods had been sent to them; that in letter dated 26-9-1984 Kays International informed Swastik Fashions about release of consignment of 50 cases received under G.R. No. 3156 of M/s. All India Transport, Bombay. Learned DR referred to pages 15, 18 and 19 of the impugned order and submitted that this shows that the high sea sale, was a fake one. He also mentioned that from the contents of statement dated 24-9-1984 of Shri Maithal, it was clear that he was unaware of the fact of import and that Kays International were responsible to import the goods.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

N.B.S. Manian vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 14 March, 2007

6. The applicant on the basis of above decisions contended that no charge sheet was served on him and the show cause notice seeking willingness for recovery cannot be treated as a disciplinary case against him by the DPC while considering his case for promotion. Any denial of promotion which is not in confirmity with the rules would entitle him for backwages too. He stated that no adverse remarks were communicated to him by the superious made in the Character Rolls. Director of Postal Services who was reported to have sent the Special Report could not mention about the Uttukottai S.O. case since no the charge sheet was issued to him at that time. Hence if there was any adverse information in his special report, the DPC should have ignored the same. Had the DPC correctly assessed his suitability for promotion taking into account the above factors, he would have been included in the promotion list.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras Cites 3 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Shri A. K. Rastogi vs Union Of India Through on 19 October, 2011

He, therefore, places his reliance on the judgment of Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Sudesh Kumar versus Haryana Power Generation Limited & Another (2006-3-ATJ-117), B. D. Kubba and Another versus Union of India (decided by Jaipur Bench of the Tribunal on 14.07.2004), Awadhut Wasudeo Waikar versus Union of India (OA No.294/1995 decided by the CAT , Principal Bench on 12.04.1996), Ajit S.Bhatia versus Union of India and Another decided by the Bombay Bench of the Tribunal, A. N.Vijay Shanker versus Secretary, Ministry of Defence (decided by the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal on 29.03.1993). In view of the above judgments, Shri V. K. Sharma would submit that the OA should be allowed and necessary directions be issued to the respondents.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1