Model: Tejasw1/votum-case-law-v1
Author: Tejasw1
Pipeline: sentence-similarity
Library: sentence-transformers
Tags: sentence-transformers, safetensors, new, sentence-similarity, feature-extraction, generated_from_trainer, dataset_size:132576, loss:MatryoshkaLoss, loss:MultipleNegativesRankingLoss, custom_code, en, arxiv:1908.10084, arxiv:2205.13147, arxiv:1705.00652, base_model:Alibaba-NLP/gte-base-en-v1.5, base_model:finetune:Alibaba-NLP/gte-base-en-v1.5, license:apache-2.0, model-index, text-embeddings-inference, endpoints_compatible, region:us
Base models (finetune): id: Alibaba-NLP/gte-base-en-v1.5
Card metadata: language: en
license: apache-2.0
tags: sentence-transformers, sentence-similarity, feature-extraction, generated_from_trainer, dataset_size:132576, loss:MatryoshkaLoss, loss:MultipleNegativesRankingLoss
base_model: Alibaba-NLP/gte-base-en-v1.5
widget: source_sentence: In what circumstances can the permission to pay turnover tax under Section 7 of the KGST Act be challenged or rectified?
sentences: **1. Key Legal Issues and Holdings:**

* **Amalgamation of LLPs:** The case revolves around the proposed Scheme of Amalgamation of two Limited Liability Partnerships (LLPs), Alps Trade Com LLP (Transferee) and Lubstor Trade Com LLP (Transferor), under Section 60-62 of the Limited Liability Partnership Act, 2008.
* **Approval of Scheme:** The main legal issue is the Tribunal's approval of the proposed Scheme of Amalgamation, which involves the transfer of assets, liabilities, and rights of the Transferor LLP to the Transferee LLP.
* **Compliance with LLP Act:** The court considered the compliance of the LLPs with the provisions of the Limited Liability Partnership Act, 2008, including the requirement for consent from partners, creditors, and other stakeholders.

**2. Significant Facts of the Case:**

* The Transferee LLP, Alps Trade Com LLP, has 4 partners, and the Transferor LLP, Lubstor Trade Com LLP, has 3 partners.
* The Transferor LLP has NIL creditors, and the Transferee LLP has one major creditor, Yaduka Agrotech Private Limited, which has given its no objection to the proposed merger.
* The Scheme of Amalgamation has been approved by the partners and creditors of both LLPs.
* The Tribunal has dispensed with the requirement of holding separate meetings of partners and creditors of both LLPs.

**3. Court's Ruling:**

* The Tribunal has approved the Scheme of Amalgamation under Section 60-62 of the Limited Liability Partnership Act, 2008.
* The Tribunal has dispensed with the requirement of holding separate meetings of partners and creditors of both LLPs.
* The LLPs are required to serve notice to the Registrar of Companies, West Bengal, the Official Liquidator, and the Income-Tax Assessing Officer within 7 days from the date of the order.

**4. Citations:**

* **Limited Liability Partnership Act, 2008** (Sections 60-62), **1. Key Legal Issues and Holdings:**

* **Alternate Method of Taxation:** The case revolves around the applicability of the alternate method of taxation under Section 7 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963.
* **Section 7 of KGST Act:** The main legal issue is the interpretation of Section 7 of the KGST Act, which provides for payment of tax at a compounded rate.
* **Assessment Year:** The court considered the issue of whether the amended provisions of the Kerala Finance Act, 2001, which came into effect from 23-7-2001, were applicable for Assessment Year 2001-2002.

**2. Significant Facts of the Case:**

* The appellant, M/s Varkisons Engineers, is a partnership firm with a crushing unit at Kadiyiruppu, Kolenchery, Ernakulam District.
* The appellant opted to pay turnover tax under Section 7 of the KGST Act for Assessment Year 2001-2002.
* The assessing authority granted permission to the appellant to pay tax under Section 7 on 9-4-2001.
* The Finance Act, 2001, enhanced the rate per machine from Rs 30,000 to Rs 90,000 from 23-7-2001.
* The appellant challenged the notice issued under Section 43 of the KGST Act seeking to rectify the permission/order dated 9-4-2001 and seeking an enhanced rate per machine with effect from 23-7-2001.

**3. Court's Ruling:**

* The Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment dated 4-10-2007 and restored Original Petition No. 1501 of 2003 to the file of the Kerala High Court for de novo consideration.
* The court held that the Surcharge Act, 1957, was not retrospective in operation and could not be regarded as law in force at the commencement of the year of Assessment 1957-1958.
* The court also referred to the judgment of this Court in CIT v. Isthmian Steamship Lines, where it was held that the law to be applied is the law in force in the assessment year, unless otherwise stated or implied.
* The civil appeal stands disposed of accordingly, with all contentions expressly kept open.

**4. Citations:**

* **State of Kerala v. Builders Assn. of India**, (1997) 2 SCC 183
* **Mycon Construction Ltd. v. State of Karnataka**, (2003) 9 SCC 583
* **Mathuram Agrawal v. State of M.P.**, (1999) 8 SCC 667
* **Karimtharuvi Tea Estate Ltd. v. State of Kerala**, AIR 1966 SC 1385 : (1966) 60 ITR 262
* **CST v. Modi Sugar Mills Ltd.**, AIR 1961 SC 1047 : (1961) 2 SCR 189 : (1961) 12 STC 182, **1. Key Legal Issues and Holdings:**

* **Existence of Dispute:** The main legal issue is whether there was an existence of dispute prior to the issuance of the Demand Notice dated 11.04.2019.
* **Section 8 of IBC:** The court considered the application of Section 8 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, which deals with the requirement of a dispute to be raised by the corporate debtor in response to a demand notice.
* **Admissibility of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP):** The court's ruling affected the admissibility of the CIRP against the corporate debtor.

**2. Significant Facts of the Case:**

* The corporate debtor, Triumph Realty Pvt. Ltd., had a pre-existing dispute with the operational creditor, Tech India Engineers Pvt. Ltd.
* The operational creditor issued a demand notice dated 11.04.2019, which was received by the corporate debtor on 16.04.2019.
* The corporate debtor raised disputes through e-mails dated 04.10.2018, 01.11.2018, and 04.12.2018, among others.
* The corporate debtor also pointed out discrepancies in the billed and actual executed work through e-mails dated 05.11.2018 and 29.04.2019.
* The parties exchanged several e-mails and letters regarding the completion of the work and deficiency in services, indicating a pre-existing dispute.

**3. Court's Ruling:**

* The NCLAT (National Company Law Appellate Tribunal) allowed the appeal and set aside the Impugned Order dated 04.06.2020 passed by the learned Adjudicating Authority.
* The court held that the corporate debtor had raised disputes prior to the issuance of the demand notice, making the initiation of the CIRP against the corporate debtor invalid.
* The court quashed the steps taken in consequence of the Impugned Order and released the corporate debtor from the rigour of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process.

**4. Citations:**

* **Mobilox Innovations Private Limited v. Kirusa Software Private Limited** (2018) 1 SCC 353
* **Innoventive Industries Ltd. v. ICICI Bank** (2018) 1 SCC 407
* **Vinod Mittal v. Rays Power Exports** (Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 851/2019 dated 18.11.2019)
* **Gajendra Parihar v. Devi Industrial Engineers** (Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1370 of 2019 dated 18.03.2020), source_sentence: How does the court determine the adequacy of shareholder approval in corporate amalgamations?
sentences: **1. Key Legal Issues and Holdings:**

* **Trademark Infringement:** The primary legal issue is whether the term "Split View" can be considered a trademark or is merely descriptive of a software feature.
* **Prior Use:** The court considered whether Apple Inc. or the respondents (Rohit Singh and Vyooh Low Level Computing LLP) had prior use of the term "Split View" as a trademark.
* **Passing Off:** The court examined whether Apple's use of "Split View" constitutes passing off, given the distinction between a product and a feature within an operating system.
* **Descriptive Use vs. Trademark Use:** The court evaluated whether "Split View" is a descriptive term or a trademark, noting that if it is merely descriptive, it cannot be claimed as a trademark.
* **Distinctiveness:** The court assessed whether the term "Split View" had acquired a secondary meaning or distinctiveness, thereby qualifying as a trademark.

**2. Significant Facts of the Case:**

* Rohit Singh developed a software product called "Split View" in 2005, which allowed users to simultaneously work on multiple windows on their computer screen.
* Apple Inc. launched an update to their operating system (Mac OS X El Capitan and iOS 9) in December 2015, which included a feature called "Split View."
* Rohit Singh claimed that Apple's use of "Split View" infringed on his trademark and sought relief from Apple.
* Apple argued that "Split View" is a descriptive term used by various software developers and not a trademark.
* Apple highlighted that its use of "Split View" is integrated within its operating system and not sold as a standalone product.
* Apple provided examples of other entities using "Split View" to describe multi-window functionality.
* The court noted that the respondents had established prior use of the term "Split View" as a trademark for their software product.
* The court recognized the distinction between a product and a feature within an operating system, which is relevant to the passing off claim.
* The court found that the term "Split View" was used descriptively and not as a trademark by either party.

**3. Court's Ruling:**

* The High Court vacated the ex-parte interim order granted by the learned Single Judge.
* The court directed Apple to file a written statement.
* The court noted that the respondents had established prior use of the term "Split View" as a trademark for their software product.
* The court recognized the distinction between a product and a feature within an operating system, which is relevant to the passing off claim.
* The court concluded that the term "Split View" is descriptive and cannot be claimed as a trademark by either party.

**4. Citations:**

* **Kavi Raj Pandit v. Durga Dutt Sharma**, AIR 1965 SC 1980
* **Carlsberg India Pvt. Ltd. v. Radico Khaitan Ltd.**, 2012 (49) PTC 54
* **Automatic Electric v. R.K. Dhawan**, 57 (1995) DLT 49
* **Laxmikant V. Patel v. Chetanbhai Shah**, (2002) 3 SCC 65
* **Cadila Healthcare Ltd. v. Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd.**, ILR (2010) II Del 85
* **Uniply Industries Ltd. v. Karnataka Industrial Development Corporation**, (2001) 5 SCC 95, AIR 2001 SC 2083, **1. Key Legal Issues and Holdings:**

* **Amalgamation of Companies:** The case revolves around the proposed amalgamation between Crown Beers India Private Limited (Transferor Company) and Anheuser Busch InBev India Limited (Transferee Company) under sections 230 to 232 of the Companies Act, 2013.
* **Scheme of Amalgamation:** The main legal issue is the approval of the Scheme of Amalgamation, which includes the transfer of assets and liabilities from the Transferor Company to the Transferee Company.
* **Shareholder Approval:** The court considered the requirements for shareholder approval, including the notice period, proxy voting, and quorum.

**2. Significant Facts of the Case:**

* The Transferor Company is engaged in the business of manufacturing, brewing, packaging, distribution, marketing, sale, export, and import of beer, liquor, and other alcoholic products.
* The Scheme provides for the issuance of new equity shares by the Transferee Company to the equity shareholders of the Transferor Company.
* The Scheme also provides for the transfer of assets and liabilities from the Transferor Company to the Transferee Company.
* There are no secured creditors, but there are approximately 1,250 unsecured creditors.

**3. Court's Ruling:**

* The Tribunal directed the Applicant Company to issue notices to the equity shareholders, unsecured creditors, and regulatory authorities.
* The Tribunal also directed the Applicant Company to serve notices to the concerned Income Tax Authority and the Central Government.
* The Tribunal dispensed with the meeting of the creditors and directed the Applicant Company to file an affidavit of service.

**4. Citations:**

* **Companies Act, 2013**
* **Companies (Compromises, Arrangements and Amalgamations) Rules, 2016**, **1. Key Legal Issues and Holdings:**

* **Amalgamation of Companies:** The case revolves around the proposed amalgamation of Fizza Plastics Private Limited (Transferor Company) with Krypton Datamatics Limited (Transferee Company) under Sections 230-232 of the Companies Act, 2013.
* **Scheme of Amalgamation:** The court considered the applicability of the Scheme of Amalgamation, including its compliance with the Accounting Standards and the requirements of the Companies Act, 2013.
* **Dispensation of Convening Meetings:** The court held that the requirement of convening meetings of shareholders and creditors can be dispensed with, considering the consent of shareholders and creditors.

**2. Significant Facts of the Case:**

* The Transferor Company and Transferee Company are incorporated under the Companies Act, 2013.
* The registered offices of both companies are situated in the National Capital Territory of Delhi.
* The Scheme of Amalgamation is necessitated by the consolidation of the businesses, strategic and competitive advantages, economies of scale, and better utilization of skilled manpower.
* The Share Exchange Ratio has been determined in accordance with the Report on Valuation of Shares & Share Exchange Ratio dated 5th December 2017.
* The Board of Directors of each company has unanimously approved the proposed Scheme of Amalgamation.

**3. Court's Ruling:**

* The court allowed the application for dispensing with the requirement of convening meetings of shareholders and creditors of the applicant companies.
* The court directed the applicant companies to comply with the applicable law, including forms and formats contained in the Companies (Compromises, Arrangements, Amalgamations) Rules, 2016.
* The court also directed the applicant companies to send notices to the Central Government, Income Tax Authorities, Registrar of Companies, and other sectoral regulators or authorities as required under sub-section (5) of section 230 of the Companies Act, 2013.

**4. Citations:**

* Companies Act, 2013
* Companies (Compromises, Arrangements, and Amalgamations) Rules, 2016, source_sentence: Under what circumstances can a government servant be prosecuted without obtaining prior sanction as per Section 197 CrPC?
sentences: **1. Key Legal Issues and Holdings:**

* **Share Transfer and Acquisition:** The case revolves around the alleged illegal transfer and acquisition of shares by Respondent No. 2 from Respondents 5-12, which diluted the shareholding of the Petitioner.
* **Section 108 of the Company Act 1956:** The main legal issue is the application of Section 108, which deals with the transfer of shares, and whether the transfer was made without the previous sanction of the Directors.
* **Articles of Association:** The court considered the provisions of the Articles of Association, particularly Article No. of the AOA, which permits member-to-member transfers.

**2. Significant Facts of the Case:**

* The Respondent company was incorporated on 29.5.2007 with 1,50,000 shares held equally by the three initial promoters.
* The company acquired a property in Goa, and to raise finances for development, further allotment of 90,000 shares was made at a premium to third parties.
* Respondent No. 2 purchased an adjoining piece of land for Rs. 1.2 crores and proposed to amalgamate it with the project.
* The Petitioner alleges that Respondent No. 2 was in control of the company's affairs and had not transferred the plot of 300 sq. meters to the company.
* The Respondent company's bank account is jointly operated, and the security advance received from the Lessee has been spent on renovations and additions.

**3. Court's Ruling:**

* The court dismissed the petition on grounds of limitation and lack of merit.
* The court held that the acquisition of shares by Respondent No. 2 was not illegal, as it was a member-to-member transfer permitted under the Articles of Association.
* The court found that the Petitioner had knowledge of the acquisition and had not objected to it, giving rise to the inference of his consent.
* The court also found that the Respondent company's management decisions, including the leasing of the property, were not oppressive or mismanaged.

**4. Citations:**

* **Section 108 of the Company Act 1956**
* **Articles of Association of the Company**
* **Precedents under the Companies Act 2013**, **1. Key Legal Issues and Holdings:**

* **Section 196 CrPC:** Whether the court can take cognizance of an offense committed by a police officer while acting in the discharge of his official duties without sanction.
* **Section 197 CrPC:** Whether a government servant can be prosecuted without sanction.
* **Protection of Public Servants:** The court balanced the need to protect public servants in the discharge of their duties while also emphasizing the protection of citizens' rights.

**2. Significant Facts of the Case:**

* The petitioner, Bakhshish Singh Brar, a Deputy Superintendent of Police, was accused of causing grievous injuries and death during a raid and search.
* The case was committed to the Court of Sessions by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kapurthala.
* The complainant, Gurmej Kaur, alleged that the petitioner and his police party had attacked her and her sons, Ajit Singh and Manjit Singh, who were later killed.
* The respondent's case was that the police party was conducting a raid on a haveli in connection with illicit liquor and unlicensed arms.
* The court noted that the two versions of the incident were in conflict.

**3. Court's Ruling:**

* The court held that the trial could proceed without sanction under Section 196 CrPC.
* The court observed that the question of whether the petitioner exceeded his official capacity while acting in the discharge of his duties could only be determined after some evidence had been noted by the trial court.
* The court allowed the trial to proceed as expeditiously as possible and directed that the question of sanction under Section 197 CrPC may be agitated after some evidence had been noted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.

**4. Citations:**

* **Pukhraj v. State of Rajasthan**, (1973) 2 SCC 701 : 1973 SCC (Cri) 944 : (1974) 1 SCR 559, **1. Key Legal Issues and Holdings:**

* **Circumstantial Evidence:** The case revolves around the use of circumstantial evidence to establish the guilt of the accused under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
* **Dying Declaration:** The admissibility of the oral dying declaration made by the deceased to P.Ws.1 and 2 is a crucial issue.
* **Extra-Judicial Confession:** The evidence of P.W.7 regarding the extra-judicial confession made by the accused is significant.
* **Recovery of Materials:** The recovery of materials of evidence, such as blood-stained clothes and weapons, is also an issue.

**2. Significant Facts of the Case:**

* The deceased was cutting tapioca plants on the accused's land, which led to a quarrel and subsequent assault by the accused.
* The accused beat the deceased with a stick and inflicted cut injuries with a sickle, leaving him with 15 external injuries and fractures in the skull, right leg, and left elbow.
* The deceased was tied with a nylon rope and left bleeding, and the accused fled the scene.
* P.Ws.1 and 2 found the accused with blood-stained clothes and reported the incident to the police.

**3. Court's Ruling:**

* The High Court upheld the conviction of the accused under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
* The court rejected the accused's plea for sympathy and modification of the conviction and sentence.
* The accused was sentenced to life imprisonment.

**4. Citations:**

* **Gentela Vijayavardhan Rao v. State of A.P.**, (1996) (6) SCC 241
* **Namdeo Daulata Dhayagude v. State of Maharashtra**, (1976) (4) SCC 441
* **Padala Veera Reddy v. State of A.P.**, AIR 1990 SC 709
* **Puran Singh v. State of Punjab**, 1995 Supp (3) SCC 665
* **Rattan Singh v. State of H.P.**, (1997) (4) SCC 161

**Additional Key Points:**

* The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence, which must satisfy the tests laid down in Padala Veera Reddy v. State of A.P. (AIR 1990 SC 709).
* The accused's motive was established through the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2, and 7, showing the accused had a grudge against the deceased for cutting the tapioca plants.
* The oral dying declaration of the deceased to P.Ws.1 and 2 was corroborated by the medical evidence and other circumstances, making it reliable.
* The accused's extra-judicial confession to P.W.7 was significant, along with the recovery of blood-stained clothes and weapons.
* The accused's sentence was upheld, and he was sentenced to life imprisonment.

**Refined Summary:**

The case revolves around the murder of the deceased by the accused, who was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence, including the oral dying declaration of the deceased, the accused's extra-judicial confession, and the recovery of blood-stained clothes and weapons. The court upheld the conviction and sentence, rejecting the accused's plea for sympathy and modification. The accused was sentenced to life imprisonment., source_sentence: How does the court assess the significance of the recovery of firearms and cartridges from the accused at the crime scene in establishing a conspiracy to commit murder?
sentences: **1. Key Legal Issues and Holdings:**

* **Tenancy and Land Laws:** The case revolves around the interpretation of tenancy rights under the U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939, and the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950.
* **Bhumidari Rights:** The main legal issue is the applicability of Section 182(2) of the U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939, which deals with the extinguishment of a female tenant's rights upon marriage and the consequent hereditary tenancy rights of the person in possession.
* **Possession and Sirdari Rights:** The court considered the question of whether Chhanoo, the respondent, had acquired sirdari rights through adverse possession or as a representative of Mst Sundariya, the original tenant.

**2. Significant Facts of the Case:**

* Mst Sundariya, the original tenant, died, and Chhanoo, her guardian, managed the property.
* Mst Sundariya obtained bhumidari rights in the plots in question by depositing ten times the rent.
* She sold the plots to the plaintiff, and Chhanoo claimed rights on the land.
* The revenue entries showed that Chhanoo was the guardian of Mst Sundariya, and he continued to manage the property.
* Mst Sundariya continued to be shown as a tenant in the revenue records, and Chhanoo did not take any action to correct the entries or claim adverse possession.

**3. Court's Ruling:**

* The court upheld the finding of the first appellate court that Chhanoo's possession was always as a representative or de facto guardian of Mst Sundariya.
* The court held that Chhanoo did not acquire any title by way of adverse possession and was not entitled to sirdari rights.
* The court allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the High Court, restoring the order of the first appellate court.

**4. Citations:**

* **U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939**
* **U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950**
* **Section 182(2) of the U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939**
* **Section 36 of the Tenancy Act**
* **Section 134 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950**
* **Section 137 and 137-A of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950**, **1. Key Legal Issues and Holdings:**

* **Murder and Attempted Murder:** The case revolves around allegations of murder and attempted murder of Dr. Satya Prakash Dubey and his wife Smt. Manorma Dubey, and injuries to Umesh Chandra Mishra and Munnu Singh.
* **Section 302 and 307 IPC:** The main legal issue is the application of Section 302 (punishment for murder) and Section 307 (attempt to murder) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
* **Arms Act:** The court also considered the application of the Arms Act, specifically Section 25, which deals with the unlawful possession of firearms.

**2. Significant Facts of the Case:**

* The occurrence took place on August 8, 1982, at the residence of Dr. Satya Prakash Dubey in Etawah.
* Dr. Dubey and his wife Smt. Manorma Dubey were found dead, while Umesh Chandra Mishra and Munnu Singh were injured.
* The accused, Brijendra Kumar, Ashok Dixit, and Chaman Lal, were apprehended at the scene, and firearms and cartridges were recovered from them.
* The prosecution case was that the accused had conspired to murder Dr. Dubey and his wife, and had attempted to murder the injured individuals.
* The defense argued that the accused were innocent and that the prosecution had failed to prove their guilt.
* The investigating officer failed to record the statements of eye witnesses, including Umesh Chandra Mishra, Km. Ritu, Munnu Singh, and Bhagwat Dayal Dubey, on the night of the occurrence.
* The accused persons were not interrogated on the night of the occurrence, and the investigating officer recorded their statements in the morning of 9-8-1982.
* The First Information Report (FIR) was allegedly founded on the information furnished by Munnu Singh, one of the injured, but Munnu Singh was not examined as a witness to corroborate the version in the FIR.

**3. Court's Ruling:**

* The High Court has acquitted the accused, Brijendra Kumar, Ashok Dixit, and Chaman Lal, due to lack of credible evidence.
* The court has observed that the investigation was marred by several irregularities and that the evidence presented by the prosecution was unreliable.
* The court has also noted that the investigating officer and other police personnel had conducted themselves in a manner that raised doubts about the prosecution case.

**4. Citations:**

* The case does not seem to be a precedent-setting case, but the court has considered the judgments of the Apex Court in other cases while delivering its verdict., **1. Key Legal Issues and Holdings:**

* **Occupier of a Factory:** The main legal issue is the interpretation of who can be considered the occupier of a factory, particularly in the case of a company.
* **Ultimate Control:** The court holds that a company, which owns or runs a factory, cannot nominate any employee or officer, except a director, as the occupier of the factory.
* **Proviso (ii) to Section 2(n) of the Factories Act, 1948:** The court upholds the validity of the proviso, which provides a deeming fiction that a director of a company shall be deemed to be the occupier in case of a company.
* **Vicarious Liability:** The court affirms the principle of vicarious liability, holding that the occupier (director) is responsible for the actions of the manager and actual offenders in the factory.
* **Strict Liability:** The court upholds the principle of strict liability, where the occupier is liable for the contravention of provisions under the Act, even without mens rea.
* **Section 101 as an Exception:** The court holds that Section 101 of the Act provides an exception to the principle of strict liability, allowing the occupier to extricate himself from liability by establishing that the actual offender is someone else.

**2. Significant Facts of the Case:**

* The case revolves around the interpretation of Section 2(n) of the Factories Act, 1948, and the proviso (ii) added in 1987.
* The court considers the legislative history of the amendment and the Statement of Objects and Reasons.
* The court refers to various judgments, including M.C. Mehta (II) v. Union of India, to understand the context of the amendment.
* The Chief Inspector of Factories directed the petitioners/appellants to file applications seeking renewal of the registration of licence of their respective factories, signed by a director of the company in his capacity as the occupier of the factory.

**3. Court's Ruling:**

* The Supreme Court upholds the validity of proviso (ii) to Section 2(n) of the Factories Act, 1948.
* The court holds that a company, which owns or runs a factory, cannot nominate any employee or officer, except a director, as the occupier of the factory.
* The court affirms the directions given by the Chief Inspector of Factories to the writ petitioners and the appellants, stating that only a director of the company can file an application for renewal of the factory licence.
* The court also holds that Section 101 of the Act provides an exception to the principle of strict liability, allowing the occupier to extricate himself from liability by establishing that the actual offender is someone else.

**4. Citations:**

* **M.C. Mehta (II) v. Union of India**, (1986) 2 SCC 325
* **John Donald Mackenzie v. Chief Inspector of Factories**, AIR 1962 SC 1351
* **Tesco Supermarkets Ltd. v. Nattrass**, 1972 AC 153
* **Lennard's Carrying Co. Ltd. v. Asiatic Petroleum Co. Ltd.**, 1915 AC 705
* **Reserve Bank of India v. Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd.**, (1984) 4 SCC 444
* **S. Gopal Reddy v. State of A.P.**, (1995) 6 SCC 738
* **CIT v. Indo Mercantile Bank Ltd.**, (1999) 2 SCC 76
* **State of Gujarat v. Kansara Manilal Bhikalal**, (AIR at p. 1897)
* **Maneklal Jinabhai Kot v. State of Gujarat**, (approved by a three-Judge Bench of this Court), source_sentence: What role does the liquidator play in verifying the claims and charges of secured creditors during the liquidation of a corporate debtor?
sentences: **1. Key Legal Issues and Holdings:**

* **Priority of Charges:** The main legal issue is the priority of charges on the secured assets of the corporate debtor, Reid and Taylor India Ltd.
* **Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016:** The court considered the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, particularly Section 52 and Regulation 37 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016.
* **Security Interest:** The court examined the security interest held by the applicant, Finquest Financial Solutions P. Ltd., and other financial creditors, including Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd.
* **Entitlement to Realize Security Interest:** The court held that the applicant is entitled to realize their security interest in the manner specified under Section 52(1)(b) read with Regulation 37 of the IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016.

**2. Significant Facts of the Case:**

* The applicant, Finquest Financial Solutions P. Ltd., is a secured creditor with a first pari passu charge on the immovable fixed assets of the corporate debtor.
* Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd. is also a secured creditor with a claim on the same assets.
* The corporate debtor, Reid and Taylor India Ltd., has been under liquidation.
* Suit No. 84 of 2013 is pending in the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nanjangud, challenging the first charge created by IDM.
* The liquidator has verified the documents and found that the applicant is the sole first charge holder of the immovable property of the corporate debtor at Mysore.
* The Edelweiss had not obtained an NOC from the IDM and had not ventilated their grievance or enforced their rights before any forum.

**3. Court's Ruling:**

* The court ruled that the applicant, Finquest Financial Solutions P. Ltd., is entitled to realize their security interest in the manner specified under Section 52(1)(b) read with Regulation 37 of the IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016.
* The court held that the applicant is the first charge holder of the immovable fixed assets of the corporate debtor.
* The court dismissed the objection of Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd. regarding the priority of charges.
* The court directed the liquidator to hand over the symbolic possession of the fixed assets of the corporate debtor to the applicant to enable them to proceed with the sale of the assets.
* The court directed the liquidator to inform the Tribunal about the manner and progress of the sale of assets from time-to-time for further directions/instructions.

**4. Citations:**

* **Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016**
* **Regulation 37 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016**
* **Suit No. 84 of 2013 filed with the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nanjangud, Karnataka**, **1. Key Legal Issues and Holdings:**

* **Dowry and Cruelty:** The case revolves around allegations of dowry demands and cruelty by the husband (petitioner) towards his wife.
* **Section 498-A IPC:** The main legal issue is the application of Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which deals with cruelty by the husband or his relatives towards a married woman.
* **Sentencing:** The court considered the appropriateness of the sentence awarded to the petitioner under Section 498-A IPC.

**2. Significant Facts of the Case:**

* The petitioner, Mangat Ram, was convicted under Section 498-A IPC.
* He was sentenced to one year imprisonment and a fine.
* He appealed the conviction and sentence, which was dismissed.
* He then filed a revision petition, seeking a reduction in sentence.
* The petitioner had already served over two months in prison.
* The complainant (wife) had obtained an ex-parte divorce decree.

**3. Court's Ruling:**

* The High Court upheld the conviction of the petitioner under Section 498-A IPC.
* The court reduced the sentence to the period already undergone by the petitioner.
* The court enhanced the fine to Rs. 5000/-.

**4. Citations:**

* **Yogendra Yadav v. State of Jharkhand**, Criminal Appeal No. 1205 of 2014
* **Lajpat Rai v. State of Haryana**, Criminal Revision No. 1380 of 1999

**Refined Summary (Updated):**

**1. Key Legal Issues and Holdings:**

* **Default Bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C.:** The court considered the applicability of default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. in cases where the investigating agency fails to file the final report within the prescribed time limit.
* **Investigation and Filing of Challan:** The court held that the investigation is not considered incomplete merely because the investigating officer awaits reports of experts or fails to append certain documents to the police report.
* **Role of the Court:** The court emphasized its role in determining whether to permit the prosecutor to adduce evidence of experts and to balance the interest of the accused with the interest of justice.

**2. Significant Facts of the Case:**

* The petitioners, Sukhwinder Kumar @ Sukha, Harpreet Singh @ Bahadur, Navjit Singh, and Rakesh Kumar @ Kesha, were accused of offenses under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985.
* They filed revision petitions seeking default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C.
* The prosecution opposed their claims, arguing that the investigating agency had not failed to file the final report within the prescribed time limit.
* The court considered the rival contentions and held that the petitioners were entitled to default bail.

**3. Court's Ruling:**

* The court disposed of the revision petitions, releasing the petitioners on interim bail till the filing of the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C.
* The court emphasized the importance of the investigating agency and the prosecuting agency complying with statutory provisions to avoid delay in completing investigations and filing challans.
* The court noted that the respondent-State had failed to comply with statutory provisions, resulting in the accused getting benefit of default bail.

**4. Citations:**

* **Abdul Azeez P.V. v. National Investigation Agency**, 2015 (1) RCR (Criminal) 239
* **Mehal Singh v. State of Haryana**, 1978 PLR 480, **Refined Summary:**

**1. Key Legal Issues and Holdings:**

* **Public Purpose:** The main legal issue is the interpretation of the public purpose for which land was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
* **Section 4 and 6:** The court considered the validity of notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act.
* **Land Acquisition:** The court held that the public purpose of acquiring land for planned development of the expanding town of Greater Delhi remained the same, despite the introduction of the Master Plan.

**2. Significant Facts of the Case:**

* The case involves the acquisition of land for the execution of the Interim General Plan for Greater Delhi.
* The Master Plan for Delhi came into force on September 1, 1962, replacing the Interim General Plan.
* The respondents contended that the public purpose indicated in the declaration under Section 6 ceased to be operative after the introduction of the Master Plan.
* The appellants argued that the public purpose remained the same, i.e., the planned development of the expanding town of Greater Delhi.

**3. Court's Ruling:**

* The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of the Delhi High Court.
* The court held that the public purpose of acquiring land remained the same, despite the introduction of the Master Plan.
* The court directed the parties to bear their own costs.

**4. Citations:**

* **Babu Singh v. Union of India**, (1981) 3 SCC 628
pipeline_tag: sentence-similarity
library_name: sentence-transformers
metrics: cosine_accuracy@1, cosine_accuracy@3, cosine_accuracy@5, cosine_accuracy@10, cosine_precision@1, cosine_precision@3, cosine_precision@5, cosine_precision@10, cosine_recall@1, cosine_recall@3, cosine_recall@5, cosine_recall@10, cosine_ndcg@10, cosine_mrr@10, cosine_map@100
model-index: name: GTE-base Votum Case Law
results: task: type: information-retrieval
name: Information Retrieval
dataset: name: dim 768
type: dim_768
metrics: type: cosine_accuracy@1
value: 0.0824018343364861
name: Cosine Accuracy@1
verified: no, type: cosine_accuracy@3
value: 0.24835196331327028
name: Cosine Accuracy@3
verified: no, type: cosine_accuracy@5
value: 0.33935224992834623
name: Cosine Accuracy@5
verified: no, type: cosine_accuracy@10
value: 0.4760676411579249
name: Cosine Accuracy@10
verified: no, type: cosine_precision@1
value: 0.0824018343364861
name: Cosine Precision@1
verified: no, type: cosine_precision@3
value: 0.08278398777109008
name: Cosine Precision@3
verified: no, type: cosine_precision@5
value: 0.06787044998566925
name: Cosine Precision@5
verified: no, type: cosine_precision@10
value: 0.04760676411579248
name: Cosine Precision@10
verified: no, type: cosine_recall@1
value: 0.0824018343364861
name: Cosine Recall@1
verified: no, type: cosine_recall@3
value: 0.24835196331327028
name: Cosine Recall@3
verified: no, type: cosine_recall@5
value: 0.33935224992834623
name: Cosine Recall@5
verified: no, type: cosine_recall@10
value: 0.4760676411579249
name: Cosine Recall@10
verified: no, type: cosine_ndcg@10
value: 0.2582198876800978
name: Cosine Ndcg@10
verified: no, type: cosine_mrr@10
value: 0.19086027742519565
name: Cosine Mrr@10
verified: no, type: cosine_map@100
value: 0.20176101999097426
name: Cosine Map@100
verified: no, task: type: information-retrieval
name: Information Retrieval
dataset: name: dim 512
type: dim_512
metrics: type: cosine_accuracy@1
value: 0.07781599312123817
name: Cosine Accuracy@1
verified: no, type: cosine_accuracy@3
value: 0.235024362281456
name: Cosine Accuracy@3
verified: no, type: cosine_accuracy@5
value: 0.32745772427629694
name: Cosine Accuracy@5
verified: no, type: cosine_accuracy@10
value: 0.4656061908856406
name: Cosine Accuracy@10
verified: no, type: cosine_precision@1
value: 0.07781599312123817
name: Cosine Precision@1
verified: no, type: cosine_precision@3
value: 0.07834145409381867
name: Cosine Precision@3
verified: no, type: cosine_precision@5
value: 0.06549154485525939
name: Cosine Precision@5
verified: no, type: cosine_precision@10
value: 0.046560619088564056
name: Cosine Precision@10
verified: no, type: cosine_recall@1
value: 0.07781599312123817
name: Cosine Recall@1
verified: no, type: cosine_recall@3
value: 0.235024362281456
name: Cosine Recall@3
verified: no, type: cosine_recall@5
value: 0.32745772427629694
name: Cosine Recall@5
verified: no, type: cosine_recall@10
value: 0.4656061908856406
name: Cosine Recall@10
verified: no, type: cosine_ndcg@10
value: 0.25020804232360305
name: Cosine Ndcg@10
verified: no, type: cosine_mrr@10
value: 0.1837239601104605
name: Cosine Mrr@10
verified: no, type: cosine_map@100
value: 0.19468382782021346
name: Cosine Map@100
verified: no
Likes: 0 | All-time downloads: 623
Created: 2024-12-08 11:51:01