.....was quashed and set aside, as also the ratio of renu mullick (supra), we are of the considered view that respondents could not have declared applicants ineligible for consideration for selection for the post of goods driver. they may have been put at bottom seniority in the new unit having been transferred on own request but their service in the earlier unit cannot be lost sight of while determining their eligibility for selection for the post of goods driver.10. in the facts and circumstances of the case as discussed above, respondents are directed to re-consider the eligibility of these applicants taking into consideration the period of their service in the earlier unit ignoring instructions contained in circular dated 17.4.1997 and if applicants are found to be eligible in this manner, their result with all consequential benefits may be declared.
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....regard to other allegations like delay in payment of money / securities and dealing in unquoted shares, the enquiry officer, after considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the broker recommended for a lenient view. it was also found by the enquiry officer that in some instances, contract notes were not acknowledged by the clients, which is a minor lapse.5. the enquiry officer has also mentioned in his report that he was also appointed as the adjudicating officer to conduct adjudication under section 15a(c), 15b and 15f of sebi act, 1992 with respect to certain charges, which are also the subject matter of this enquiry proceedings. however, both the proceedings are separate proceedings and both the remedies are available to sebi under the act. he imposed a penalty of rs. 10,000/- in the adjudication proceedings. in view of this, considering the gravity of the charges and the submissions made by the broker, the enquiry officer recommended a minor penalty of warning on the broker in these proceedings.6. in view of the above, i am of the view that it would meet the ends of justice if a warning is given to the broker.7.1 now, therefore, in.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....taken in case of default by the broker.5.0 the enquiry officer recommended for issuing a warning to the broker. in the light of the above, i have no substantive reasons to differ with the findings of the enquiry officer.6.1 now, therefore, in exercise of powers conferred under upon me in terms of section 19 of sebi act, 1992 read with regulation 13(4) of the said regulations, i hereby warn m/s anish securities ltd ltd (inb080959318), member, bangalore stock exchange and direct it to be more cautious in future in its dealings with securities and to adhere to the provisions of sebi act, 1992 and the rules and regulations made thereunder. any future lapse on its part in complying with the said provisions would invite stringent action.
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : (2006)68SCL306SAT
.....of a bunch of seven appeals nos. 27, 27a to 27f/2005, which are directed against the same impugned order and in which common questions of law and fact arise. since arguments were addressed in appeal no. 27/2005, the facts are being taken from this case. counsel for the parties are agreed that the decision in this appeal will govern the other cases as well.2. this appeal filed under section 15t of the securities and exchange board of india act, 1992 (for short "the act") is directed against the order dated 8.9.2004 passed by the securities and exchange board of india (hereinafter called the "board") whereby appellant no. 1 was identified as a vanishing company and a direction issued to it and its directors under sections 11(1) and 11b of the act directing them to disassociate themselves in every respect from the capital market related activities and not to access the capital market for a period of 5 years. the public companies in which the directors of appellant no. 1 held controlling or substantial interest have also been restrained from raising funds from the capital market for a period of 5 years.3. pur opale creations ltd. (hereinafter called "the company") along with its.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....as violation in any manner.4.4 the enquiry officer found that there is truth in the reply of the member that inspection has not considered many factors viz. amount paid by broker towards client obligation, brokerage etc and in the absence of the same it is difficult to ascertain whether the member has made any mis-utilisation of clients money. the enquiry officer, however, is of the view that the broker should have been cautious in maintaining a clear cut segregation and wherever not possible should have recorded reasons for the same and therefore has recommended for warning. 4.5 with regard to the other charges/allegations, the enquiry officer after considering the reply of the broker found that they are minor and trivial in nature. i am inclined to agree with the findings of the enquiry officer.4.6 in the facts and circumstances of the case, i agree with the findings of the enquiry officer and a warning to the broker would be sufficient and meet the ends of justice. 5.0 order 5.1 now, therefore, in exercise of powers conferred under upon me in terms of section 19 of sebi act, 1992 read with regulation 13(4) of the said regulations, i hereby warn accord capital markets ltd,.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....nature which were done every wednesday after 4 pm. the trade in question was also done on wednesday. eo finds that the broker's explanation is satisfactory. c) whether there was delay in making payment to clients in certain cases it was alleged that in certain cases payment to clients has been delayed. the broker replied that the payment to the clients was made within the stipulated time of the pay-out as declared by the exchange. however in some cases, the clients asked to withhold the same as it used to keep open positions in subsequent settlements and therefore in those cases as per the standing instructions of the clients, funds were withheld as margin/security. eo finds that the broker's reply appears to be satisfactory as during the enquiry proceedings, the broker had furnished written letters from its clients specifically instructing it to withhold payments for use in subsequent settlements. d. whether the broker has failed to fill client registration forms properly it was alleged that in certain cases client registration forms have not been filled properly the broker stated that none of the clients mentioned have ever traded or executed even a single transaction till.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....hyderabad bench a, the following question has been referred to me for consideration under section 255(4) of the income tax act, 1961: whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessing officer was justified in issuing an intimation under section 143(1)(a)of the act though simultaneously notice was issued under section 143(2) of the act.2. the above controversy arose in the circumstances that assessing officer issued intimation under section 143(1)(a) on 24-11-1998 when simultaneously on the same date he issued notice under section 143(2) of the income tax act.cit v. gujarat electricity board their lordships after considering legislative intent behind the enactment of section 143(1)(a) and section 143(2) have observed as under: the legislature therefore intended that where the summary proceeding under sub-section (1) has been adopted, there should be scope available for the revenue either suo moto or at the instance of the assessee to make a regular assessment under sub-section (2) of section 143. the converse is not available: regular assessment proceedings having commenced under section 143(2), there is no need for the proceedings under section.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....of the above referred cases into account and applying the same in the instant case in support of the appellant, this court is of the view that the facts and circumstances under which the above proposition of law has been laid down, are completely different with the facts and circumstances so emerged in this present case. rather the ratio of those cited cases would help the respondents' case.13. dr. ahmed, supporting the impugned judgment and decree, has contended that the impugned judgment and decree was passed on proper consideration and appreciation of the testimony of the witnesses as well as after thorough examination of the pleadings of the parties. according to him, in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the plaint as already mentioned, the plaintiffs categorically made out a case of specific performance as they averred that they were all along willing and ready to make the payment and it was defendant who did not accept the amount and failed to make any action for execution of the sale deed and they also specifically stated that they approached the defendant repeatedly on several occasions. the pleadings so mentioned were also supported by adducing the evidence. according to him, pw-1.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....that petitioner no. 1 (wife) had brought a complaint case no. 322/99 against the complainant and others for torture and dowry under sections 498a, 379 of the indian penal code and sections 3/4 of the dowry prohibition act and one maintenance case under section 125, cr. p.c. and this case has been filed mala fide for harassing petitioner no. 1 and others. he further submitted that the allegation in the complaint petition is that the petitioners went near the house of the complainant and assaulted him and also snatched away golden chain, rs. 10,000 in cash which is absurd because petitioner no. 1 is the wife of the complainant, petitioner no. 3 is the mother and petitioner no. 4 is the sister of petitioner no. 1 and it is highly improbable that these family members would go near the house of the complainant and committed the above crime.3. learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 defended the impugned order.4. considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners in my opinion, it would be an abuse of the process of the court to proceed with the complaint case.5. in the result, the impugned order is quashed and this application is allowed.
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....pointed out in the review petition was under a mistake and the earlier judgment would not have been passed but for erroneous assumption which in fact did not exist and its perpetuation shall result in a miscarriage of justice nothing would preclude the court from rectifying the error.4. apex court in surjit singh v. union of india : air1997sc2693 held that when a patent error is brought out to the notice of the tribunal, the tribunal is duty bound to correct with grace its mistake of law by way of review of its order or/directions.5. as discussed above, a review petition will lie on the following three grounds:(i) discovery of new and important matters or evidence;(ii) mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; and(iii) any other sufficient reasons.this court in ranjit biswas v. pabitra narayan choudhury 1996 (2) glt 92 is of the view that the expression 'any other sufficient reasons' mentioned in order xlvii, rule 1, cpc also extends to the grounds or/ reasons on which the court can entertain review petition for doing substantial justice. this court in ranjit biswas (supra) had reviewed the earlier ex parte judgment and order for disposing the civil revision on.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT