Search Results for "Rule 3(a)"

5 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 5 result(s)

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Promotion Dispute Decided on "Seniority-Cum-Fitness" Principle. Bombay High Court emphasizes seniority in promotional disputes, barring further merit assessments once minimum fitness is proven.

The High Court of Bombay addressed a writ petition filed by Smt. Shweta Takalgavankar challenging the promotion of a junior, Smt. Asha Bagul, to the p...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

High Court Quashes Stop Work Notice on Fortune Developers' Project in Yerawada. Court Rules in Favor of Property Rights; Cites Lack of Legal Justification in PMC's Actions.

The Bombay High Court has ruled in favor of Fortune Developers and Infrastructure, quashing the Pune Municipal Corporation's (PMC) stop work notice th...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Court Upholds Recruitment Rules of 2015, Dismisses Petition Challenging RFO Seniority List. Petitioners' reliance on superseded 1998 Rules and failure to include all affected parties lead to dismissal; seniority list validated under 2015 Rules.

The petitioners challenged the seniority list based on the Recruitment Rules of 1998, arguing against the application of the Recruitment Rules of 2015...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Supreme Court Dismisses Revenue's Appeal, Classifies Car Matting as Carpet Under Chapter 57 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. HSN Explanatory Notes and Specific Description Principle Applied to Hold That Car Matting Is More Specifically Described as Carpet Than as Motor Vehicle Accessory.

The case involved two appeals by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-III against a common decision of the Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate...