Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.88 seconds)
Documents citing Vinesh Chandra Saxena vs Uoi And Ors on 7 January, 2013

Unknown vs Union Of India Through Its Secretary on 24 May, 2016

2.7 Being aggrieved by inaction of the respondents in the matter of considering the case of the applicant for grant of compassionate appointment, the applicant filed another OA No.1230 of 2012 (Dinesh Chandra vs. Union of India and others), which was disposed of by this Tribunal vide Order dated 27.9.2012 with the direction to respondents/competent authority to consider the claim of the applicant and pass reasoned and speaking order in accordance with the terms as contained in Order passed in OA No.811/04.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Rajesh Agarwal Raju Sagar vs Commissioner, Customs-Indore on 7 January, 2021

6. Further, the Hon‟ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Dinesh Chandra (supra) have held that CITES do not govern the domestic trade, possession or breeding by any person including aviaries, but only international trade. It was further observed that „internal trade‟ i.e. domestic trade within India, of „exotic species‟ is not found in any schedule of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 and was never prohibited. Only „external trade‟ i.e. international trade is governed by the conditions of Foreign Trade Policy. The Hon‟ble 24 Customs Appeal No. 50170 of 2021 Allahabad High Court further held that domestic trade in exotic birds/ animals is not prohibited and substantial export of the exotic birds from India is seen since several years in view of large scale breeding of exotic species in India. It is further held that no documents are specified and no permission is required as per Customs Act for keeping, breeding, buying, selling and exhibiting of such exotic birds/ animals within the country. It is further held that the exotic birds/animals are not notified under Section 123 of the Customs Act. Thus, there is no presumption of smuggling on the person who is in possession of such exotic birds/ animals, also do not attract the provisions of Chapter IV-A of the Customs Act. It was also held that mere acquisition, purchase or possession of exotic birds/animals does not violate provisions under the Customs Act. It is only at the entry point, at the time of import, any consignment of exotic birds/ animals intercepted, upon establishing violation of the statutory provisions or CITES, the same would be liable for confiscation. It was held that the Central Government has consciously kept the exotic birds /animals out of the purview of Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 by not including them in its schedules, and has thus ipso facto permitted their domestic trading, possession and captive breeding.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Khodiyar Animal Welfare Trust & Anr. vs Ministry Of Environment Forest And ... on 23 October, 2020

9. An earlier PIL Civil No. 22903 of 2019 : Dinesh Chandra vs. W.P.(C) 6372/2020 Page 14 of 23 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PANKAJ KUMAR Location: Signing Date:03.11.2020 22:02:53 Union of India and others, filed by the very same petitioner against the same respondents was dismissed vide a detailed judgment dated 30.08.2019. It is not in dispute that the said judgment attained finality and binds the parties, as the same has not been challenged by any of the parties. It was inter alia observed that :-
Delhi High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - P Jalan - Full Document

Smt. Adwitiya Chakrabarti vs Union Of India on 21 September, 2022

"9. An earlier PIL Civil No. 22903 of 2019: Dinesh Chandra Vs. Union of India and others, filed by the very same petitioner against the same respondents was dismissed vide a detailed judgment dated 30.08.2019. It is not in dispute that the said judgment attained finality and binds the parties, as the same has not been challenged by any of the parties. It was inter alia observed that:-
Tripura High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 3 - I Mahanty - Full Document

Sri Ram Charan Meena vs General Manager N C Rly on 12 August, 2025

Similarly, in Vimlesh Chandra (supra) case, relaxation from passing the typing test was also allowed on the ground of attaining the age of 45 years as has been disclosed hereinabove. In the instant case, the applicant has not attained the age of 45 years. In that situation, no help can be extended to the applicant on the basis of ratio laid down in the case law relied upon by him.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Vijay Kumar vs Chief Post Master General Up Circle on 10 August, 2018

2. During the course of the arguments, learned counsel for the applicant placed before the Bench an order dated 30.05.2016 passed by this Tribunal in OA No. 620/2014 - Dinesh Chandra Vs. UOI & Ors and submitted that the grievance of the applicant would be redressed, if his case is considered by the respondents in the light of the order dated 30.05.2016 passed in OA No. 620/2014.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1