Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.25 seconds)
Jagjit Singh vs Union Of India And Others on 23 April, 2024 cites

The Secretary, Min.Of Defence & Ors vs Prabhash Chandra Mirdha on 30 April, 2007

In Secretary, Ministry of Defence and others v. Prabhash Chandra Mirdha, 2012 (4) RSJ 484, it has been laid down by the Supreme Court that ordinarily a writ application does not lie against a charge sheet or show cause notice for the reason that it does not give rise to any cause of action. It does not amount to an adverse order which affects the right of any party unless the same has been issued by a person having no jurisdiction/competence to do so. A writ lies when some right of a party is infringed. In fact, charge sheet does not infringe the right of a party. It is only when a final order imposing the punishment or otherwise adversely affecting a party is passed, it may have a grievance and cause of action. Thus, a charge sheet or show cause notice in disciplinary proceedings should not ordinarily be quashed by the Court. It was further held that normally a charge sheet is not quashed prior to the conclusion of the inquiry on the ground that the facts stated in the charge sheet are erroneous for the reason that correctness or truth of the charge is the function of the disciplinary authority. It was also held that neither the disciplinary proceedings nor the charge sheet should be quashed at an initial stage as it would be a premature stage to deal with the issues. The position prevailing at present in the department inquiry is that a sitting Judge of the High Court on the Administrative side is seized of the inquiry and proceedings are going on. Evidence is being recorded. The petitioner would have every right to submit his point of view in accordance with law before the inquiry officer. Therefore, at this stage, it would be wholly inappropriate to interfere in the inquiry that is going on at an intermediary stage and nullifying or in any case keep in
Supreme Court of India Cites 25 - Cited by 365 - Full Document

Empire Industries Limited & Ors. Etc vs Union Of India & Ors. Etc on 6 May, 1985

9. The other argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner vis-a-vis interim orders passed in connected cases, cannot be countenanced with as the same have no binding effects to be followed in all subsequent cases. Reliance is placed upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Empire Industries Ltd. and others Vs. Union of India and others : 1985(3) SCC 314, wherein it has been held as under:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 37 - Cited by 400 - A Varadarajan - Full Document

M/S Meneta Automotive Components Pvt. ... vs Cce & St, Rohtak on 18 March, 2015

"It is admitted fact that duty free raw material was imported by appellant in terms of Customs Notification above. Had the raw material not been imported, the appellant would have been at par with domestic players. Peculiarly appellant availed customs duty exemption at the cost of exchequer. Scrap was inbuilt in the duty free material imported. Ignorance of Customs duty forgone on the scrap 10 of 12 ::: Downloaded on - 29-04-2024 22:00:02 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:041142 CWP No.8238 of 2024 (O&M) 11 2024:PHHC:041142 aspect would place domestic players in disadvantageous position and shall run counter to the principle laid down in Hyderabad Asbestos Cement Products - 2000 (115) ELT 20 (SC). Therefore, as a course of equality before law, we direct the appellant to make deposit Rs.40 lakhs within four weeks from today and make compliance on 26-02-2014. We may add that an interim order has no precedential value and we are guided by the ratio laid down by Apex Court in the case of Empire Industries - 1985 (20) ELT 179 (SC), Dunlop India Ltd. - 1985 (19) ELT 22 (SC), Benara Valves Ltd. 2006 (204) ELT 513 (SC) and Vijay Prakash D. Mehta - 1989 (39) ELT 178 (SC)."
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 4 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

The Punjab State Warehousingh Field ... vs Union Of India And Ors on 8 September, 2016

2), 09.02.2024 (Annexure P-3) and 21.06.2018 (Annexure P-4), regarding less storage gain/assured gain in wheat stocks for the crop years 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 at PUNSUP Storage Centre Tarn Taran. He further submits that there are no storage norms for the said period for the Food Corporation of India to make deductions from the bills of the Corporation and resultantly coercive recovery from the employees by initiating disciplinary proceedings against them and for filing of the charge-sheets is untenable as it have been issued in total contravention of the judgments, policies, documents and hence, the charge-sheets itself are violative of the statutory provisions of the rules, regulations and policies governing the conditions of service of the petitioner and no evidence has been adduced by the Corporation on which the claims have been vested. He further submits that the matter relating to storage gain in wheat stocks and storage loss in rice stocks is sub-judice before this Court in CWP No.27725 of 2013, titled as "Punjab State Warehousing Corporation Field Employees Union vs Union of India and others", along with bunch of petitions, which is pending for 24.05.2024. There are no scientific norms on the basis of which charge-sheets have been issued, therefore, the action of the respondents in issuing the charge-sheets dated 29.03.2019 (Annexures P-1 and P-2), 09.02.2024 (Annexure P-3) and 21.06.2018 (Annexure P-
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1