Anonymous
19 December 2011 at 19:07
What is exact name called after amendment ed of said Act.? Its call As ICAI OR ICMAI Act 1959.
If ICWAI Question Against to eliminate name Chartered form ICAI. its valid? I again little confuse Abt What name called ICWAI OR ICAI OR ICAMI
Member (Account Deleted)
19 December 2011 at 14:35
Who shall have the power to clarify on the following issue: Is it the Supreme Court or the Judge( 3 Bench Members) who wrote the judgement but now retired?
Anonymous
16 December 2011 at 22:53
Dear LCI members,
Can anyone of you help me to provide the full syllabus of Exams of Advocate on record in supreme court to be held in june 2012? Pls. consider as urgent and thanx in advance.
Anonymous
16 December 2011 at 17:54
Hi Everybody Me and my girlfriend are planing to go on a trip of two days. So we are planing to stay in a hotel there.Is there any problem in staying in a hotel together.
And I have also heard that sometimes cops ask such couples to confirm from their parents. As I know they do so only fon some money as nobody will want his/her parent to call and confirm rather than giving some rupees to the cops. I request you guys to give some tips to tackle these cops.
please help me out.
thanx
S C KHOSLA
16 December 2011 at 15:24
In a case under CCS (CCA Rules)1965, a charged official (CO), desired change in Inquiry Officer (IO) on ground of bias in its very first Regular Hearing (RH)through a formal letter.
The IO gave stay to RH and sent the CO`s request for change in IO ship to the consideration of Disciplinary Authority (DA)as per rules.
The DA replied to CO rejecting his request for change in IO ship and marked copy of communication to IO and Presenting officer (PO) in the case.
Now on receipt of this letter in IOs office, whether IO`s stay to RH is automatically gets vaccated or IO should wait for Presenting officer (PO) formal comunication of pray for vacating the above stay in RH.
bhanu pratap720
15 December 2011 at 13:01
CAN A WRIT OF CERTIORARI(UNDER ARTICLE 226) BE ISSUED AGAINST A PRIVATE BODY REGISTERED UNDER SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT FOR DISMISSAL OF AN EMPLOYEE ?
raghu
14 December 2011 at 14:34
Do the sons/daughters of a notary public advocate of OBC category whose income is below 4.50 lakh fall in creamy layer? A line in this article (http://www.airwebworld.com/articles/index.php?article=1533) says that the children of lawyers come in creamy layer.
Anonymous
13 December 2011 at 23:28
Dear Experts,
1) Case filed by People For Animals in Delhi HC and Delhi HC ruled that airguns need license and impugned the Central Government notification No. GSR 991 which exempted air guns from license. The judgement is available at http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1406083/
2) Three affected parties have approached Supreme Court against this Delhi HC order:
a) PC 19693-19695/2011 (NRAI Vs. People for Animals)
b) PC 20773-20775/2011 (Union of India Vs. People for Animals)
c) PC 19880-19882/2011 (M/s AIRGUN,RIFL.PIST.& PELLET MF.ASN Vs. People for Animals)
These three different cases are linked to each other where the Respondent is the same 'People for Animals'.
Can any more person also file his own petition or join these existing petitions in Supreme Court, if he feels aggrieved and affected by this utterly erroneous judgement of Delhi High Court?
Can he combine SLP with writ under Article 32 if he feels the judgement is dwelling on erroneous precedents set by other HCs and blindly followed by Delhi HC and implemented by executive. Therefore in addition to SLP, the executive needs writ directions and clarity to cure the cumulative affect of these misleading judgements by various HCs including Delhi HC?
rajasekaran
13 December 2011 at 12:00
For an application/appeal under 19 of MSMED Act read with section 34 of Arbitration and conciliation Act 1996 pre-deposit of 75% of award is mandated. Are the Courts entitled to condone delay beyond three months and 30 days in filling application with 75% pre-deposit? . If so under which provision of law representation delay/ filling delay is condonable?
rajasekaran
© 2025 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
Cca rules
Under Rule 16 of CCS (CCA) rules, 1965, the office (a central govt statutory body) have issued memo(by CEO) to Mr X in Dec 2011 on ground of imputation of misconduct. Intent to charge with minor penalty had been indicated for which explanation had been sought. The misconduct (favouring a firm in official work) had been indicated as committed around 5 years back.
2 advises of CVC recvd by office in March 2008 and Feb 2011 but never communicated to `X`by office.
Suddenly the office asked (by CEO) in Dec 2011 and asked explanation.
In 2010, office (Mr `S`) appointed `X` as Inquiry Officer (IO) in a case on Mr `A` under Rule 14 (major penalty) of CCS(CCA) Rules. The case has moved further with 3-4 hearings under the IO ship of `X`.
On receipt of above memo, `X` replied to all the facts of the case, apprehending conspiracy by some office colleagues after 6 years, requesting clean chit and also drew their attention that he was appointed IO by them(Mr `S`) a year back (irrespective of CVC advises), meaning that all is clear from vigilance side for Mr `X`. Vigilance department being custodian of all cases, knows explanation memo given to Mr `X` as well as case on `A`.
Reply submitted few days back by `X` to CEO.
After few days, in the case pertaining to Mr `A`, office reconfirmed appointment (by Mr `S`) of Mr `X` as IO in above case for moving ahead with hearings.
Now what is the position of `X`
i) Is the official explanation earlier asked (by CEO) is just an explanation sought or is it a charge sheet, though he is IO in another case.
ii) Can `X` move ahead with hearings on `A`. The official Presenting officer(PO) in `A` case knows nothing about memo given to Mr`X ` and is requesting for starting the hearings in the `A` case.
iii) or Mr`X should wait in case on `A`, till he gets clean chit from office(CEO) for his own memo.