Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Apr-13-2005
Reported in : 2005(101)ECC609; 2005(186)ELT145(Kar); ILR2005KAR2613
orderd.v. shylendra kumar, j.1. the orders of the tribunal which is functioning under section 35-b of the central excise act, 1944 (for short 'the act') and passing orders in exercise of powers under the proviso to section 35-f of the act have always been the subject matter of controversy and subject for further litigation to approach the high court by invoking the provisions of articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of india and on an occasion or two, even the supreme court.2. while more often than not, it is the assessee who is normally aggrieved by the orders passed by the tribunal either granting partial waiver of the amount required to be deposited for maintaining the appeal before the tribunal or in some cases not-granting any waiver, this time the revenue is before this court questioning the legality of one such order passed by the tribunal where under the tribunal has granted full waiver of the requirement of the deposit of the amount, amount that is the subject matter or dispute in the appeals pending before it, in terms of the order dated 13.12.2004. the impugned order is one passed in common in several appeals, pending before the tribunal, namely, excise appeal nos. 590-591/2004 and excise appeal no. 1051/2004.3. the value of the subject matter in appeal nos. 590-91/2004 is said to be of a sum of rs 35 crores and the value of the subject matter in appeal no. 1051/2004 is said to be rs 29 crores. it is mainly disputing this liability which the respondent was .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Sep-15-2005
Reported in : ILR2006KAR222
order 6 rule 17 - amendment of pleadings - whether proposed amendment is permissible after the amendment to the code - held - a reading of section 16(2)(b) would make it abundantly clear that some of the provisions are omitted under order 6 and some of the provisions are inserted or substituted by amended code and shall not apply in respect of any pleadings filed before the commencement of the amended provision. therefore the proviso cannot be an impediment or bar in allowing the amendment application if it is otherwise on merits deserves to be allowed.petition rejected.Tag this Judgment!
Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Feb-22-2005
Reported in : [2005(105)FLR551]; ILR2005KAR1456; 2005(2)KarLJ571
ordern.k. patil, j. 1. the petitioners herein, questioning the legality and validity of the office order dated 4th december 2002 bearing no.d.v-2/2002-ec.ii on the file of the second respondent vide annexure d, have presented the instant writ petitions. further, the petitioners have sought for a direction, directing the respondents to continue the services of the petitioners in the post held by them with all other consequential benefits and on par with other selected candidates in respondents force.2. the grievance of the petitioners in the instant writ petitions is that in pursuance of the notification issued by the second respondent, which was published in the news paper in the month of august september 2002, inviting eligible candidates for selection and appointment to various posts including the post of 'safai karmachari' and further notifying that all the eligible candidates desirous of joining the central reserve police force (crpf), should attend for a personal test and interview including the medical test which will commence from 27th september 2002 onwards, the petitioners herein, having requisite qualification and the eligibility, applied for the post of 'safai karmachari'. after verifying the educational qualification of the petitioners, medical fitness and physical test, the petitioners herein have been selected and accordingly, the appointment orders were also issued and the same have been communicated to the petitioners vide annexures a1, a2, and a3 respectively .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Oct-05-2005
Reported in : AIR2006Kant17; ILR2005KAR6073; 2005(6)KarLJ346
orders. abdul nazeer, j. 1. the 1st petitioner is the trust and the 2nd petitioner is an engineering college run by the 1st petitioner. in this case the petitioners have called in question the order passed by the all india counsel for technical education (for short, 'aicte'), the 1st respondent herein dated 4-8-2005 (annexure-a) imposing penalty for the excess admission made by the college for the academic year 2003-2004 and for quashing of the communication dated 15-8-2005 (annextire-q), whereby the intake of the petitioner for the academic year 2005-2006 was reduced by 46 seats in the undergraduate level degree courses in engineering.2. the annual intake of the 2nd petitioner college was fixed by the aicte at 730 in the undergraduate level courses for the academic year 1979-80 and onwards in various disciplines. by a communication dated 30-4-2003, aicte reduced the annual intake of the college for the academic year 2003-2004 to 600. the college has sent a letter dated 23-5-2003 to the aicte seeking restoration of the intake. challenging the fixation of the intake, the petitioners filed a writ petition before this court in w.p. no. 25952 of 2003 for a mandamus, directing the aicte to withdraw the said communication insofar as it sought to reduce the intake in the college and restore the existing annual intake. this court granted an interim order of stay of the communication dated 30-4-2003. the writ petition was disposed of on 9-6-2003 by directing the aicte to treat the .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jul-29-2005
Reported in : ILR2005KAR3973
s.r. nayak, j.1. whether rejection of the tender of the appellant and acceptance of the tender of the contesting respondents 4 to 6 for awarding the contract of repairing the distribution transformers of the erstwhile karnataka electricity board, which is now succeeded by the bangalore electricity supply company (for short, bescom) is vitiated on account of any factor/circumstance, which would attract the wrath of the postulates of article 14 of the constitution of inda, viz., fairness, reasonableness and non-arbitrariness, is the question that arises for decision in this writ appeal.2. the case of the appellant-petitioner is as follows: the appellant is a small scale industrial unit established in the year 1982 and has been carrying on business of repairing of distribution transformers. the appellant has repaired more than 16,000 distribution transformers of 25 kva, 63 kva and 100 kva capacity and has installed them in various locations both in urban and rural bescom areas. the appellant has the required infrastructure and financial capacity and to repair and deliver satisfactorily 500 distribution transformers of various capacities per month. the appellant's work was found to be satisfactory by bescom and a certificate also had been issued by the superintending engineer, bangalore rural circle to that effect in favour of the appellant. during the year 1991, a contract was awarded by respondent no. 1 for a period of three years and that contract came to an end in october .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-17-2005
Reported in : 2005(2)KarLJ69
orderk. sreedhar rao, j.1. the petitioner working as a professor and dean of faculty of arts in bangalore university. the vice-chancellor by order at annexure-b, dated 28-6-2004 nominated the petitioner to syndicate. the terms of nomination makes it explicit that the term is for one year w.e.f. 1-7-2004 or till the reconsideration of syndicate as envisaged under section 38(1), whichever is earlier.2. the term of syndicate to which the petitioner is nominated expired and reconstituted w.e.f. 6-11-2004. it is the contention of the petitioner that even in the reconstituted syndicate, he is entitled to hold the office as a nominated member until the expiry of one year as per annexure-b. the relevant provisions of sections 28, 38 and 39 are extracted hereunder for convenient reference.-'28. syndicate.-(1) the syndicate shall consist of the following members, namely.-xxx xxx xxx.(d) one dean nominated by the vice-chancellor for a period of one year by rotation according to seniority.38. the term of office of the members of the academic council and syndicate.-(1) save as otherwise provided, the term of the office of the members other than the ex officio members of the academic council and the syndicate shall be three years, or till reconstitution, whichever is earlier.(2) notwithstanding anything contained in this act, the academic council and the syndicate shall be reconstituted once in three years simultaneously.39. restriction of holding the membership of the authorities:-(1) any .....Tag this Judgment!