Union of India and Ors. v. Vipinchandra Hiralal Shah

UNION PUBLIC SERVICE vs. DR A LOKESHA

Bench: SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR,A.S.BOPANNA

…, therefore, the Court holds that there was failure on the part of the authorities in carrying out the timely exercise of cadre review. 44. In a somewhat similar situation, this Court in Union of India and Ors. vs. Vipinchandra Hiralal Shah (1996) 6 SCC 721, while construing Regulation 5 of the IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 held that the insertion of the word `ordinarily' does not alter the intendment underlying the provision. This Court in that case was considering the provision of Clause (1) of Regulation 5 of the IPS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations along with…

M/S. SHOELINE vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX

The appeal is partly allowed in terms of the signed reportable

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI

…ilarly situated persons. Such a situation can occur when the subject-matter of the decision touches upon the policy matters, like scheme of regularisation and the like (see K.C. Sharma v. Union of India [K.C. Sharma v. Union of India, (1997) 6 SCC 721 : 1998 SCC (L&S) 226] ). On the other hand, if the judgment of the court was in personam holding that benefit of the said judgment shall accrue to the parties before the court and such an intention is stated expressly in the judgment or it can be impliedly found out from the tenor and language of the judgment, those who want to get the bene…

Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) vs. M/s. Hindustan RAtna (JV)

The Appeals are disposed of by modifying the award dated 20

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

…owards loss of future prospects= 2040/-. Total loss of income per month Rs. 7140/- -20- 20. Learned Tribunal applied the multiplier of 17 while assessing the loss of future income, which as per mandate of Sarla Verma vs DTC reported in (2009) 6 SCC 721 should have been of 18. Thus, the petitioner was entitled to compensation under the head loss of future income as under: Rs. 7140 X 12 X 18 = Rs. 15,42,240/- 21. Learned counsel for the insurer raised another objection that learned Tribunal had erred in awarding a sum of Rs. 72,000/- to the claimant on account of attendant charges. He c…

INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. vs. COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, VADODARA

…18mm or more, and (ii) is ordinarily used as an illuminant in oil burning lamps. It is manifest that these two conditions are conjunctive, and therefore, the twin conditions need to be satisfied in order to avail of the concessional rate of duty. 4 (1996) 6 SCC 721 5 (2007) 2 SCC 159 6 (1962) 1 S.C.R. 374 7 (1974) 1 SCC 128 8 In the instant case, the fact that the assessee cleared kerosene manufactured by it to industrial consumers would entail that the assessee cannot claim the benefit of Notifications No. 5/98-CE and 5/99-CE. 18. In light of the foregoing discussion, the impug…