Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: administrative tribunals act 1985 Page 7 of about 108,846 results (0.405 seconds)

May 12 1995 (SC)

Sarwan Singh Lamba and Others Vs. Union of India and Others

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR1995SC1729; 1995(43)BLJR1295; JT1995(5)SC386; 1995(3)SCALE457; (1995)4SCC546; [1995]Supp1SCR427; 1995(3)SLJ72(SC); (1995)2UPLBEC1215

..... complied with the direction of this court given in the case of s.p. sampath kumar v. union of india : (1987)illj128sc to amend the administrative tribunals act, 1985 (hereinafter alluded to as 'the act') as suggested by it and had not made the appointments after selection by a high powered selection committee as direction by the court. they stated that ..... legislation to cure those defects. what this court was required to consider in that case was whether constitution of the administrative tribunals under the act, which excluded the jurisdiction of the high courts, was inconsistent with ..... chairman, vice-chairman and members of the tribunal as prescribed by the amendment of 1987 is valid? the amendment act of 1987 followed the judgment of this court in s.p. sampath kumar's case (supra) in which certain infirmities were pointed out in the administrative tribunals act, 1985, (hereinafter referred to as 'the act') and certain directions were given for introducing ..... test of constitutionality as being within the ambit and coverage of clause (2)(d) of article 323a, only if it can be shown that the administrative tribunals set up under the impugned act is equally efficacious as the high court so far as the power of judicial review over service matter is concerned. we must, therefore, address ourselves .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 16 2002 (SC)

Pradeep Kumar Biswas and ors. Vs. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : 2002(50)BLJR1197; JT2002(4)SC146; 2002(3)SCALE638; (2002)5SCC111; [2002]3SCR100; (2002)2UPLBEC1798

..... appellants on a notification dated 31.10.1986 issued in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of section 14 of the administrative tribunals act, 1985 whereby the provisions of sub-section(3) of section 14 of the said act have been made applicable to the council of scientific and industrial research, 'being the societyowned or controlled by government'. on point of fact ..... coup de grace to the already attenuated decision in sabhajit tewary . on 31st october 1986 in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of section 14 of the administrative tribunals act, 1985, the central government specified 17th november 1986 as the date on and from which the provisions of sub-section (3) of section 14 of the ..... its employees. 62. we cannot accept this. reading article 323(a) of theconst. (sic) section 14 of the 1985 act it is clear that no notification under section 14(2) of the administrative tribunals act could have been issued by the central government unless the employees of the csir were either appointed to public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the ..... respect of csir, the consequence will be that an application would lie at the instance of the appellants at least before the administrativetribunal. no new jurisdiction was created in the administrative tribunal. the notification which was issued by the central government merely served to shift the service disputes of the employees of csir from the constitutional jurisdiction of the high court under .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 29 2001 (SC)

The Secretary, Central Board of Direct Taxes and ors. Vs. B. Shyam Sun ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : 2001VIIAD(SC)491; AIR2001SC3288; [2002(92)FLR193]; JT2001(7)SC119; 2001LabIC3288; 2001(5)SCALE547; (2001)9SCC87; 2001(4)SCT330(SC); [2001]118TAXMAN457(SC)

..... decision is wholly unsustainable.9. even on the question of jurisdiction it seems that the matter was outside the purview of the tribunal. under section 14 of the administrative tribunal act, 1985, the tribunal has jurisdiction, power and authority in relation to 'service matters'. service matters include remuneration (including allowances), pension and other retirement benefits. the reward amount was purely ex-gratia payment. it ..... been considered and he was not found fit for grant of reward under rule 2(b) of the reward scheme, 1985. this was challenge by the respondent by filing before the central administrative tribunal, hyderabad an application under section 14 of the administrative tribunal act, 1985. according to the respondent all the conditions laid down in the scheme had bene satisfied for grant of reward to him ..... under rule 2(b) of the reward scheme, 1985 and denial thereof the him was illegal and arbitrary.5. the stand of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 25 1998 (SC)

Dr. Duryodhan Sahu and ors. Etc. Etc. Vs. Jitendra Kumar Mishra and or ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : 1998VIAD(SC)417; AIR1999SC114; 87(1999)CLT86(SC); 1998(3)CTC97; JT1998(5)SC645; (1998)IILLJ1013SC; 1998(4)SCALE643; (1998)7SCC273; [1998]Supp1SCR77; 1999(1)SLJ205(SC); 1998AIRSCC3467

..... on 15.02.96 before a bench of two judges. the bench passed the following order:-'whether a public interest litigation can be entertained by the administrative tribunal under section 19 of the administrative tribunals act, 1985 is the question raised by the appellant-state of orissa and ors? section 19, inter alia, provides that a person aggrieved by any order pertaining ..... m. srinivasan, j.1. leave granted.2. two questions have arisen for decision (1) whether an administrative tribunal constituted under administrative tribunals act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act') can entertain a public interest litigation and (ii) whether on the facts of this case the tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction in passing the impugned order?3. the facts are as follows:the petitioner, in ..... to any matter within the jurisdiction of a tribunal may make an application to the tribunal for redressal of his grievance. prima facie, it appears that a public interest ..... filed by the respondents cannot be considered to be quo warranto.21. in the result, we answer the first question in the negative and hold that the administrative tribunal constituted under the act cannot entertain a public interest litigation at the instance of a total stranger.22. turning to the second question, even the facts set out by us .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 14 1989 (SC)

Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Parma Nanda

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR1989SC1185; 1989(42)ELT320(SC); [1989(58)FLR934]; JT1989(2)SC132; (1989)IILLJ57SC; 1989(1)SCALE606; (1989)2SCC177; [1989]2SCR19; 1989(2)LC97(SC)

..... tribunals and benches thereof and terms of office of the chairman ..... put together. the law cannot provide for hierarchy of tribunals. in pursuance of articles 323a(1) the parliament enacted the administrative tribunal act, 1985 ('the act').11. we may briefly examine the statutory framework. section 4 of the act provides for establishment of central administrative tribunal as well as state administrative tribunal. it also provides power to constitute benches of the central administrative tribunal. sections 5 to 11 deal with the composition of ..... dismissal passed by the competent authority. during the pendency of the writ petition, a bench of the central tribunal at chandigarh was constituted under the administrative tribunal act, 1985. consequently, the said writ petition stood transferred to the tribunal by operation of section 29 of that act.6. the tribunal upon consideration of the matter agreed with the findings recorded by the inquiry officer that the respondent was .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 16 2008 (SC)

The State of West Bengal and ors. Vs. Kamal Sengupta and anr.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : 2008(4)AWC3764(SC); 2008(56)BLJR2317; (2009)1CALLT21(SC); JT2008(8)SC317; 2008(3)SLJ209(SC)

..... act, 1963. in our view this was certainly a 'sufficient cause' for belated filing of the application for review. though the ..... be produced by the applicants before the ld. tribunal at the appropriate time and that upon discovery of new and important material, viz., judgment and order, dated 23.5.98, which was not within their knowledge, they were not praying for review, which was admissible under the provisions of section 21 of the administrative tribunals act, 1985 and also under section 14 of the limitation ..... g.s. singhvi, j.1. whether a tribunal established under section 4 of the administrative tribunals act (for short `the act') can review its decision on the basis of subsequent order/decision/judgment rendered by a coordinate or larger bench or any superior court or on the basis of subsequent event/ ..... in it under article 323a, parliament enacted the act. chapter ii of the act contains provision for establishment of tribunals and benches thereof, qualifications of chairman and members, term of their office etc. chapter iii comprises of five sections relating to jurisdiction, powers and authority of the central, state and joint administrative tribunals, power of such tribunals to punish for contempt and distribution of business among .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 22 2008 (SC)

N. Lokananandham Vs. Chairman, Tele-com. Commission and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR2008SC2689; JT2008(5)SC640; 2008(6)SCALE382; (2008)5SCC155; 2008AIRSCW4493

..... other question was to be framed from the said volume. 10. the core question, however, would be as to whether the tribunal had the jurisdiction to issue the impugned directions. the tribunal, in terms of the provisions of the administrative tribunals act, 1985 exercises a limited jurisdiction. indisputably, a candidate, in order to qualify in the jao part ii examination is required not only ..... assistance to us.manish ujwal and ors. v. maharishi dayanand saraswati university and ors. : (2005)13scc744 has been relied upon by mr. rao to contend that the central administrative tribunal has the requisite jurisdiction to issue a direction for consideration of the representation of the aggrieved persons.that case was one of those where again the key answers were provided ..... subjects for being declared qualified in jao-part ii examination. despite grant of grace marks, he did not qualify.5. appellant filed an original application before the central administrative tribunal questioning the right of the respondents to prescribe questions in paper ix of jap part ii examination 2000 out of the syllabus. a direction was sought for against the ..... that the appellant herein without any demur whatsoever appeared in the subsequent examination. he even did not qualify therein. the principle of estoppel would, therefore, apply in this case.tribunal had, thus, exceeded to its jurisdiction in passing its order dated 23.4.2004.19. there is, therefore, no merit in the appeal. it is dismissed accordingly with .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 26 2005 (HC)

F.S. Virdi Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Delhi

Reported in : 120(2005)DLT581

..... dated 17th august, 1976. this is the order by which his pensionary benefits have been permanently withheld. it was passed much prior to the coming into force of the administrative tribunal act, 1985. we feel that the first question which arises for consideration is whether a petition assailing an order passed on 17th august, 1976 could be entertained by the ..... tribunal, which itself had come into existence in the year 1985. the question of limitation, if at all, will come later.11. the relevant section of the administrative tribunals act, 1985 which deals with a situation like the present is section 21.12. 21. limitation.-(1) a ..... tribunal shall not admit an application,-(a) in a case where a final order such as is mentioned in clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section 20 ..... review the matter. with that direction, the petition stood disposed of. consequent upon that direction, the department addressed a communication to the section officer, central administrative tribunal, principal bench, new delhi informing the tribunal that the representation of the petitioner dated 13th april, 2000 addressed to the prime minister was rejected on 5th october, 2001 and he was even informed about .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 14 1986 (HC)

Shiv Kumar Tiwari Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court : Gujarat

Reported in : (1986)2GLR1038; (1987)ILLJ386Guj

..... the disputes regarding the central government staff. if the petitioner is treated to be a servant belonging to the armed force of the union, administrative tribunals act, 1985, will not be applicable in view of the provisions under section 2 of administrative tribunals act, 1985. 3. mr. patel, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and also mr. bhatt, the learned counsel representing the railways submit that the ..... has referred the matter to the division bench in order to decide the question of jurisdiction involved in this case. 2. after the constitution of the administrative tribunal for central government staff by virtue of the administrative tribunals act, 1985. it is felt whether the petitioner herein is a railway servant or a servant belonging to the armed force of the union. if the petitioner belongs ..... members of the railway protection force which is now an armed force of the union are deemed to be railway servants. 5. section 2 of the administrative tribunals act, 1985, clearly stated as follows : '2. the provisions of this act shall not apply to - (a) any member of the naval, military or air forces or of any other armed forces of the union; (b) ..... very clear that the petitioner who belongs to the railway protection force comes under the category of 'an armed force of the union' and as such, the provisions of the administrative tribunals act, 1985, will not be applicable to him. if that be so, there is no question of sending back the petition filed by him to the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 15 1995 (HC)

District Livestock Farm Vs. P. Muthiah and 64 ors.

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (1996)ILLJ872Mad; (1996)IMLJ331

..... writ petitions in this court. according to him, after the introduction of the administrative tribunals act, 1985, central act 13 of 1985 and after the constitution of the tamil nadu administrative tribunal with effect from 1988, under section 15 of the administrative tribunals act, by virtue of section 28 of the said act, the jurisdiction conferred under article 226 of the constitution of india, on this ..... challenged on the ground that this court has no jurisdiction to entertain a dispute with regard to 'service matters' in view of the provisions contained in the administrative tribunals act, 1985. affirming the judgment of k.m. natarajan j., the division bench held that this court has no jurisdiction to entertain a petition under article 226 of ..... court to deal with service matters of the government servants, is excluded.12(a). section 28 of the act ..... their function.'therefore, in my opinion, all the 46 writ petitions deal with the service matters of government servants and as such, the tamil nadu administrative tribunal, constituted under the said act with effect from 1988, will have jurisdiction and this court cannot exercise its jurisdiction under article 226 of the constitution, that apart, as these .....

Tag this Judgment!

Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //