Fawazzx/semantic huggingface dataset:
The said section reads as under:- " Public servant taking gratification other than legal remuneration in respect of an official act.-Whoever,being,or expecting to be a public servant,accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain from any person,for himself or for any other person,any gratification whatever,other than legal remuneration,as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act or for showing or forbearing to show,in the exercise of his official functions,favour or disfavor to any person or for rendering or attempting to render any service or disservice to any person,with the Central Government or any State Government or Parliament or the Legislature of any State or with any local authority,corporation or Government company referred to in Cl.(c) of Section 2,or with any public servant,whether named or otherwise shall,be punishable with imprisonment which shall be not less than six months but which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine........." (Emphasis supplied
Semantic role: Statute
A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct, (a) If he habitually accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain from any person for himself or for any other person any gratification other than legal remuneration as a motive or reward such as is mentioned in Section 7; or (b) If he habitually accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain for himself or for any other person,any valuable thing without consideration or for a consideration which he knows to be inadequate from any person whom he knows to have been,or to be,or to be likely to he concerned in any proceeding or business transacted or about to be transacted by him or having any connection with the official functions of himself or of any public servant to whom he is subordinate,or from any,person whom he knows to be interests in or related to the person so concerned; or (c
Semantic role: Statute
Learned senior counsel for the appellant further submitted that inasmuch as the incident had occurred on 14.11.1997 and the trial Court has convicted him on 19.03.2001 which was affirmed by the High Court on 03.10.2007,at this juncture,i.e.,after a gap of 14 years,there is no need to retain the same sentence and the Court is not justified in directing the appellant to serve the remaining period after such a long time
Semantic role: Argument
Rohini Goel,(2010) 4 SCC 393 2010 Indlaw SC 301.The facts in that case are that the parties by persuasion of the family members and friends,entered into a compromise and prepared a memorandum of understanding dated 13.11.2009,in the proceedings pending before the Mediation Centre,Delhi,by which they agreed on terms and conditions incorporated therein,to settle all their disputes and also for dissolution of their marriage
Semantic role: Precedent
1998 Indlaw SC 688,this Court observed: The Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction u/art.142 has the power to make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice "between the parties in any cause or matter pending before it".The very nature of the power must lead the court to set limits for itself within which to exercise those powers and ordinarily it cannot disregard a statutory provision governing a subject,except perhaps to balance the equities between the conflicting claims of the litigating parties by "ironing out the creases" in a cause or matter before it
Semantic role: Precedent
This position was highlighted in State of Maharashtra v. Balram Bama Patil, (1983) 2 SCC 28 1983 Indlaw SC 414, Girija Shanker v. State of U.P.(2004) 3 SCC 793 2004 Indlaw SC 78 and R. Prakash v. State of Karnataka (2004) 9 SCC 27 2004 Indlaw SC 117
Semantic role: Precedent
Vide State of M.P. vs. Bablu Natt (2009) 2 SCC 272 2008 Indlaw SC 2027; Alister Anthony Pareira vs. State of Maharashtra (2012) 2 SCC 648 2012 Indlaw SC 12 and Soman vs. State of Kerala (2013) 11 SCC 382 2012 Indlaw SC
Semantic role: Precedent
The admitted facts are that the respondents through their agents had registered trade mark "Raleigh" and other trade marks (12 marks) under the Indian Merchandise Marks Act,1889 (4 of 1989) and the Trade Marks Act,1940 (5 of 1940).The Trade and Merchandise Marks Act,1958 (43 of 1958) (for short,the 'Act) which came into force with effect from October 3,1958 has repealed the Predecessor Act and now the Act is in operation
Semantic role: Facts
On March 24,1982,the appellant made an application under Sections 32,46 and 56 of the Act against the respondents in the High Court of Calcutta in Suit No.266/92 pleading,inter alia,that the respondents had failed to provide technical assistance by passing the technical know-how to Sen Raleigh after November 1,1976.Neither the appellant nor Sen Raleigh were registered users of the trade mark after November 1,1976
Semantic role: Facts
The appellant was unable to prove that there had been no such user of the trade mark for a continuous period of 61 months or longer and the lack of bona fide intention The expression "by any registered proprietors in S.46(1)(b) should not be restricted to user by proprietor or registered user who should also include bona fide or authorized users The legislature did not intend to register proprietor to be deprived of their property at the instance of user whose use is unregistered
Semantic role: Facts
It is his pivotal contention that undisputedly when the respondent was not in urge of trade mark as "a registered proprietor" or its agent Sen Raleigh as Permitted user" for a period of 5 years immediately preceding the date of the application u/s.46 for removal of the trade mark from the Register,there was no bona fide user thereof in relation to those goods by the proprietor himself
Semantic role: Argument
Subject to the provisions of section 47,a registered trade mark may be taken off the register in respect of any of the goods in respect of which it is registered on application made in the prescribed manner to a High Court or to the Registrar by any person aggrieved on the ground either - (a) xxx xxx xxx xxx (b) that up to a date of one month before the date of the application,a continuous period of five years or longer had elapsed during which the trade mark was registered and during which there was no bona fide use thereof in relation to those goods by any proprietor thereof for the time being
Semantic role: Statute
Sub-s.(3) envisages that "an application shall not be entitled to rely for the purpose of clause (b) of sub-s.(1) or for purpose of sub-s.(2) on any non-use of a trade mark which is shown to have been due to special circumstances in the trade and not to any intention to abandon or not to use the trade mark in relation to the goods to which the application relates".S.48 provides for registered users which reads thus: '48.Registered users.-(1) Subject to the provisions of section 49,a person other than the registered proprietor of a trade mark may be registered as the registered user thereof in respect of any or all of the goods in respect of which the trade mark is registered otherwise than as a defensive trade mark; but the Central Government may,by rules made in this behalf,provide that no application for registration as such shall be entertained unless the agreement between the parties complies with the conditions laid down in the rules for preventing trafficking in trade marks.(2) permitted use of a trade mark shall be deemed to be use by the proprietor thereof.and shall be used by a person the proprietor.for the purpose of s.46 or for any other purpose for which such use is material under this Act or any other law
Semantic role: Statute
The trade mark should be taken off and struck out form the register of trade marks in respect of any goods in respect of which the trade mark is registered .Sub-s.(3) enables the registered proprietor to show special circumstances for the non use of the trade mark due to which circumstances in the trade,he could not use the trade mark for the above period and not with any intention to abandon the use of trade mark or not to use the trade mark in relation to good to which the application for rectification relates
Semantic role: Statute
Should be either by the registered proprietor of the trade mark or a person other than the registered proprietor registered u/s.48(1) to use the trade mark by operation of sub-section (2).An un-registered person u/s.48(1) or a person who did not register u/s.(1) of S.48 shall not be deemed to be a registered user for the purpose of S.46 or any other law
Semantic role: Ratio of the decision
It must,therefore,be held that though the deemed presumption under sub-s.(2) of S.48 is referable to the permitted user or the registered user and it does not extend to unregistered permitted user,the Connecting link of passing off the goods between the licensor's trade mark and the lincesee should bona fide be with the permission or Consent which may be express or implied by long course of dealings
Semantic role: Ratio of the decision
AIR 1980 Delhi 299 1980 Indlaw DEL 180],the Division Bench construed S.48(2) and held that an unregistered user of the trade mark even With the consent of the proprietor cannot be construed to be a registered user u/s.48(1) and such construction renders sub-s.(2) of S.48 surplus age or otios,which is impermissible by statutory construction
Semantic role: Precedent
Though there was a ban on impart of the Raleigh cycles manufactured outside India and passed off under the registered mark of the respondents as a registered proprietor,the circumstances do not attracted sub-section (3) of S.46 to relieve the respondents to establish non-user,but on the facts of this case,we have the admitted position that Sen Raleigh,admittedly,was a registered user through which the appellant had bona fide used the registered trade mark of the registered proprietor There is no discontinuance or non-use of the trade mark by the respondent to establish the special circumstances in this case
Semantic role: Ratio of the decision
It is true that while exercising discretion,the Court u/s.46 of the Act should take into consideration not only commercial interest of the parties but also public interest: In para 21.82 at page 386 of the law of Trade Marks and passing-off by P.Narayanan (4th Ed.),it is stated that the Court or the Registrar has discretion in granting or refusing an application for rectification
Semantic role: Ratio of the decision
and he was evicted in due course, that the trespass by the appellant was of recent origin, that the allegation that the entry was made in the belief that the land belonged to the Illom was false, that the Revenue and Forest Departments did not harass the appellant but they took steps for dispossessing him only in accordance with the law, that the Commissioner's report was not correct in that all the improvements noted by the Commissioner were not made by the appellant but by other independent squatters, that after due notice an order of forfeiture had been passed in L.C. Case
Semantic role: Argument
it was observed by the Trial Court that though there is no specific evidence to show when exactly the possession of the appellant had commenced, the evidence however indicated that it must have started close to the year I 100 M. E. and that in any case the claim of the appellant that possession was from 1030 M.E. was not true inasmuch as from the year 1067 M.E. when the Act was passed possession without permission was penal and it could not be imagined that the appellant was left in peace for all these long years
Semantic role: Ruling by Lower Court
Another reason for disallowing the compensation for trees given by the High Court was that the position of a trespasser-whether he be a mere trespasser or a trespasser under a bona fide claim of title--cannot be better than that of a tenant, and that if this is correct, then the appeal has to be dismissed on the short ground that there is no principle of law or equity which requires the payment of compensation in respect of trees, the ownership of which was all along, or at any rate from the dale of the trespasser's dispossession, vested in the State
Semantic role: Facts
Section 9 of the Act is in the following terms : "Any person unauthorised occupying any land for which he is liable to pay a fine under section 6 and an assessment or prohibitory assessment under section 7, may be summarily evicted by the Division Peishkar, and any crop or other product raised on the land shall be liable to forfeiture and any building or other structure erected or anything deposited thereon shall also, if not removed by him after such written notice as the Division Peishkar may deem reasonable, be liable to forfeiture
Semantic role: Statute
An eviction under this section shall be made in the following manner, namely: By serving a notice on a person reported to be in occupation or his agent, requir ing him, within such time as the Division Peishkar may deem reasonable after receipt of the said notice to vacate the land, and if such notice is not obeyed, by removing or deputing a subordinate to remove any person who may refuse to vacate the same, and, if the officer removing any such person shall be resisted or obstructed by any person, the Division Peishkar shall hold a summary enquiry into the, facts of the case and, if satisfied that the resistance or obstruction still continues, may issue a warrant for the arrest of the said person, and on his appearance may send him with a warrant in the form of the Schedule for imprisonment in the Civil Jail of the District for such period not exceeding 30 days as may be necessary to prevent the continuance of such obstruction or resistance Provided that no person so committed or imprisoned under this section shall be liable to be prosecuted under sections 176, 179 and 181 of the Travancore Penal Code in respect of the same facts
Semantic role: Statute
Before the Privy Council it was contended on behalf of the appellant that in the various cases relied upon, there was at least some genuine claim or belief in the party erecting the buildings that he had a title to do so, even though he was eventually held to be a trespasser; and it was urged that no such claim or belief existed in that case, in which it was said the Government without any pretence of a right, tortuously invaded the appellant's property and proceeded to deal with it as their own
Semantic role: Precedent
The Board, however, agreed with what was apparently the view of both Courts in India that under the circumstances of this case, as already set forth, by the law of India, which they appear to have correctly interpreted, the Government officials were in possession "not as mere trespassers" but under such a colour of title that the buildings erected by them on the land ought not to be included in the valuation as having become the property of the landowner
Semantic role: Precedent
The pieces of circumstantial evidence which have been found proved and held as forging an incriminating chain against the accused are as under :- (i) last seen together; (ii) abnormal conduct of the accused; (iii) recovery of underwear and baniyan (which was found to be stained with semen and blood group 'B' which is also the blood-group of the deceased); (iv) False plea of alibi; and (v) Accused absconding since the date of offence
Semantic role: Facts
In the later case, it was also held that a false explanation or false plea taken by the accused can be used as an additional link in the chain of circumstantial evidence subject to satisfication of three essential conditions, namely (i) various links in the chain of evidence led by the prosecution have been satisfactorily proved, (ii) the said circumstance points to the guilt of the accused with reasonable definiteness, and (iii) the circumstance is in proxim-ity to the time and situation
Semantic role: Precedent
Placed in such situation if a villager, unaware of the law, happens to ask a person, who he feels knows the things better than what he himself does, as to what would be the period of incarceration to be suffered by any person for such an offence the impulse for inquiry may be outcome of a feeling of nervousness or mere inquisitiveness; such an enquiry is not necessarily suggestive of the working of a criminal mind
Semantic role: Ratio of the decision
So also the discov-ery of 'B' group blood-stain on the underwear cannot be treated as an incrimi-nating piece of evidence against the accused connecting him with the crime because there is no evidence that the underwear belonged to the accused and further the possiblity of the underwear being stained with the blood of the person to whom it belonged, or the accused if he was wearing it has not been ruled out
Semantic role: Argument
This civil appeal by special leave is directed against the Judgment and Decree dated 29th November,1977 rendered by a single Judge of the Gujarat High Court in Second Appeal No.348 of 1973,which arose out of Regular Civil Suit No.921 of 1966 filed in the Court of Joint Civil Judge,Baroda (Civil Court) by the appellant herein as plaintiff against respondents 1 and 2 herein
Semantic role: Facts
The issue relating to their claim that they were tenants of the said properties -the agricultural lands,as urged therein,had to be referred by the Civil Court to the Mamlatdar under section 85-A of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act,1948 -"the BT & AL Act" for recording his finding thereon and the suit had to be stayed pending receipt of the finding thereon so that the suit may be finally disposed of on the basis of such finding
Semantic role: Facts
Such findings were firstly,that the defendants had failed to prove that the suit properties were sold in favour of defendant-l subsequent to the giving of security of those properties in his favour under the mortgage deeds; secondly,that the defendants had failed to prove the past tenancy of the suit properties on its view that what was pleaded by them in the written statements was tenancy prior to the date of filing of the suit; and thirdly,that the mortgages of the suit properties were mortgages by 'conditional sale
Semantic role: Facts
A learned single Judge of the High Court,who heard the second appeal,while upheld the concurrent findings of the courts below that the deeds of mortgage executed by the plaintiff in respect of the suit properties in favour of defendant-l were mortgages by conditional sale and the defendants had failed to prove that there was sale of the suit properties in their favour subsequent to the coming into existence of the said mortgages,found that the defendants had raised in their written statements the plea that they were tenants not only prior to the date of suit but also at the time of the filing of the suit and having regard to that plea the suit ought to have been stayed by the Civil Court and the issue of tenancy should have been referred to the Mamlatdar for obtaining a finding from him thereon both under section 85-A of the BT
Semantic role: Ruling by Lower Court
Consequently,the learned single Judge set aside the judgments and decrees of the trial court and the appellate court relating to the issue of tenancy raised by the defendants in the suit and remanded the case to the Civil Court (trial court) directing it to refer the issue of such tenancy to the Mamlatdar,Baroda for his determination and to stay all further proceedings in the suit till he got the finding from the Mamlatdar on that tenancy issue and thereafter to proceed to dispose of that suit in the light of that finding and the other findings recorded by the appellate court (District Judge
Semantic role: Ruling by Lower Court
According 10 him a mortgagee in possession being a person who cannot be deemed to be a tenant under section 4 of the BT & AL Act it was not open to the defendants to claim that they were the tenants of suit properties and if that be so question of raising issue of tenancy by the Civil Court in the suit before it did not arise at all nor was it necessary to refer such issue to the Mamlatdar under section 85-A of the BT & AL Act and stay the suit till receipt of the finding on such issue as was directed by the High Court in its judgment under appeal
Semantic role: Argument
Questions which arise for our consideration and decision in the light of the aforesaid arguments of learned counsel for the contesting parties admit of their formulations thus: (1).Does the lease-hold of a tenant (lessee) in a property merge in mortgage security if the same property is given by the landlord (lessor) to the tenant (lessee) as a mortgage security under a mortgage by conditional sale,as would debar the tenant from desisting the suit of the landlord -mortgagor for recovery of possession of such property by obtaining a decree for redemption of the mortgage
Semantic role: Ratio of the decision
4.A person lawfully cultivating any land belonging to another person shall be deemed to be a tenant if such land is not cultivated personally by the owner and if such person is not - (a) A member of the owner's family,or (b) A servant on wages payable in cash or kind but not in crop share or a hired labourer cultivating the land under the personal supervision of the owner or any member of the owner's family,or (c
Semantic role: Statute
To decide whether a person is an agriculturist; (b) To decide whether a person is a tenant or a protected tenant (or a permanent tenant); (c) To decide such other matters as may be referred to him by or under this 85.(1).No Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to settle,decide or deal with any question which is by or under this Act required to be settled,decided or dealt with by the Mamlatdar or Tribunal,a Manager,the Collector or the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal in appeal or revision or the State Government in exercise of their powers of control
Semantic role: Statute
Lease-hold held by a tenant or a lessee being a lesser estate and the right of reversion of the landlord (lessor) being a higher estate,the lessee's lease-hold right in respect of the property merges in reversion when that right of reversion,i.e.,the landlord's (lessor's) right of reversion comes to the tenant or lessee which happens when the landlord having a right to sell his reversion to the tenant holding the lease-hold sells the whole of it to the tenant (lessee).But,in view of the arguments advanced on behalf of the plaintiff-appellant,what has to be seen is if the landlord of a property,the lease-hold of which is already with the tenant,gives that very property as mortgage security to the tenant (lessee) by executing a mortgage by a conditional sale for the amount borrowed by him from the latter,does merger of lease-hold right in that mortgage security occur
Semantic role: Ratio of the decision
In the present case,as has already been pointed out by us,the plaintiff-appellant did not claim that the defendants or any of them were in possession of the suit properties as tenants and there was a surrender by them of the possession either expressly or impliedly as would make the Court to come to the conclusion that the possession of the suit properties with the defendants was surrendered by them pursuant to the mortgage by conditional sale executed in their favour
Semantic role: Ratio of the decision
The decision of this Court in Shah Mathuradas case 1976 Indlaw SC 400 (supra) and G.Appalaswamy case 1984 Indlaw SC 314 (supra) sought to be relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant -plaintiff in support of his arguments that there was a merger of the leasehold right of the tenant in the suit properties when he took mortgages of those properties from the landlord as would deny him the right to continue in possession of those properties as a tenant,instead of supporting his argument would go against it,as we shall presently point out
Semantic role: Ratio of the decision