Model: Tejasw1/bge-base-case-law-v1
Author: Tejasw1
Pipeline: sentence-similarity
Library: sentence-transformers
Tags: sentence-transformers, safetensors, bert, sentence-similarity, feature-extraction, generated_from_trainer, dataset_size:16465, loss:MatryoshkaLoss, loss:MultipleNegativesRankingLoss, en, arxiv:1908.10084, arxiv:2205.13147, arxiv:1705.00652, base_model:BAAI/bge-base-en-v1.5, base_model:finetune:BAAI/bge-base-en-v1.5, license:apache-2.0, model-index, text-embeddings-inference, endpoints_compatible, region:us
Base models (finetune): id: BAAI/bge-base-en-v1.5
Card metadata: language: en
license: apache-2.0
tags: sentence-transformers, sentence-similarity, feature-extraction, generated_from_trainer, dataset_size:16465, loss:MatryoshkaLoss, loss:MultipleNegativesRankingLoss
base_model: BAAI/bge-base-en-v1.5
widget: source_sentence: **1. Key Legal Issues and Holdings:**

* **Postal Ballot and Election Rules:** The case revolves around the interpretation of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961, specifically Rule 27, which deals with the receipt of postal ballots.
* **Section 59 of the Representation Act:** The main legal issue is the application of Section 59 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which deals with the manner of voting in elections.
* **Proper Counting of Votes:** The court considered the issue of proper counting of votes, including the placement of counting agents and the presence of police officials in the counting hall.

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

* The election was held on 20-5-1991, and the date of counting was initially set for 26-5-1991, but was later postponed to 16-6-1991 due to the assassination of Shri Rajiv Gandhi.
* The election petitioner, Shri Ajit Singh, challenged the election on grounds of irregularities in the counting of votes, including the improper acceptance of postal ballots.
* The Returning Officer had surrounded the counting hall with high fences and placed benches in rows for the election agents to sit, which limited their access to the counting tables.
* The police was present inside the counting hall, and an official video photography of the counting process was taken.
* The complainant, Narinder Singh, made a complaint about irregularities in the counting of votes, and six blank ballot papers and three ballots polled in favor of the petitioner were found to be wrongly counted.
* The Chief Counting Agent, Shri N.S. Jadav, made a complaint about the irregularities, and the Returning Officer took corrective action.

**3. Court's Ruling:**

* The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the High Court and dismissed the appeal.
* The court held that the Returning Officer had justification to place police officials in the counting hall to prevent disturbances.
* The court also held that the placement of benches in rows for the election agents was necessary to prevent untoward situations developing at the time of counting.
* The court rejected the contentions of the election petitioner regarding the improper acceptance of postal ballots and the lack of access to the counting tables.
* The court ruled that the postal ballots received after 26-5-1991, but before the counting of votes fixed by the Election Commission, could not have been rejected.

**4. Citations:**

* **Jitendra Bahadur Singh v. Kirshna Behari**, (1969) 2 SCC 433 : (1970) 1 SCR 852
* **Halsbury's Laws of England**, 4th Edn., Vol. 15, paras 612 and 616, referred to
sentences: Can a tenant claim automatic purchase rights if they have not complied with specific procedural requirements?, What are the limitations regarding the locus standi of government officials in challenging compensation awards in land acquisition cases?, How should irregularities in the counting process, such as the miscounting of blank or improperly filled ballots, be addressed by the Returning Officer?, source_sentence: **1. Key Legal Issues and Holdings:**

* **Capital Gains and Exemption:** The case revolves around the exemption of capital gains under Section 45 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
* **Definition of Capital Asset:** The main legal issue is the interpretation of the term "capital asset" under the Income Tax Act, 1961.
* **Agricultural Land and Capital Assets:** The court considered whether the land in question was an agricultural land and, therefore, exempt from capital gains.

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

* The assessee purchased an extent of 4 acres of land with a hotel building in 1950 for a consideration of Rs 5.53 lakhs.
* The land was registered as urban land in the municipal records and urban land tax was levied thereon.
* The assessee constructed two large buildings on the land, which were used for non-residential purposes.
* The land was sold in 1966-67 at the rate of about Rs 260 per sq. yard.
* The assessee was raising bananas and vegetables on the land until the year of sale.
* The land was situated on Mount Road, Madras, which is the main artery of the city and its business centre.

**3. Court's Ruling:**

* The Supreme Court allowed the Revenue's appeal and set aside the judgment of the High Court.
* The court held that the land in question was not an agricultural land and, therefore, not exempt from capital gains.
* The court considered a totality of the relevant facts and circumstances, including the location, physical characteristics, and use of the land.
* The court held that the mere fact that vegetables were being raised on the land was a stop-gap activity and did not change the nature and character of the land.

**4. Citations:**

* **Sarifabibi Mohmed Ibrahim v. CIT**, (1993) 204 ITR 631
* **CIT v. V.A. Trivedi**, (1988) 172 ITR 95
* **Gordhanbhai Kahandas Dalwadi v. CIT**, (1981) 127 ITR 664 (Guj)
* **Motibhai D. Patel (Dr) v. CIT**, (1981) 127 ITR 671 (Guj)
sentences: What are the legal implications of terminating an employee on probation, and when is such a termination considered punitive rather than administrative?, What factors do courts consider when determining whether land qualifies as agricultural for the purpose of capital gains exemption?, In what circumstances can a summary dismissal of an appeal by the High Court affect the right of an accused to show cause against their conviction?, source_sentence: **1. Key Legal Issues and Holdings:**

* **Interpretation of "Income"**: The court considers the meaning of "income" under the Income Tax Act, 1961, and its implications for taxing income from house property.
* **Constitutionality of Taxation**: The court examines the constitutionality of taxing income from house property, particularly under Entry 82 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution.
* **Legislative Power**: The court reviews the legislative power of Parliament to levy taxes on income, including income from house property.

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

* The petitioner, Bhagwan Dass Jain, challenged the constitutionality of taxing income from house property under Section 23(2) of the Act.
* The petitioner argued that there is no income in the true sense of the term when the property is used for the assessee's own residence.
* The respondent, the Union of India, argued that the tax is levied on the presumed income from the property, rather than the actual income.
* The court considered the contemporaneous law relating to tax on incomes in force at the time of the Constitution's enactment.

**3. Court's Ruling:**

* The court held that the word "income" in Entry 82 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution should be given a wider meaning, encompassing not only monetary benefits but also presumed income.
* The court ruled that the tax under Section 23(2) of the Act is constitutional and justified under Entry 82 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution.
* The court rejected the petitioner's contention that taxing income from house property is unconstitutional.

**4. Citations:**

* **Navinchandra Mafatlal v. CIT**, (1955) 1 SCR 829: 26 ITR 758: AIR 1955 SC 58
* **Resch v. Federal Commissioner of Taxation**, 66 CLR 198-224
* **Governors of the Rotunda Hospital, Dublin v. Coman**, 7 TC 517, 586-587
* **D.M. Vakil v. CIT**, (1946) 14 ITR 298: AIR 1946 Bom 350
* **Sakarlal Balabhai v. ITO**, (1975) 100 ITR 97 (Guj)
* **Yogi Berra v. Secretary of War**, 251 US 253 (1920)
* **United States v. Doremus**, 249 US 86 (1919)
sentences: What are the implications of exclusion provisions in the Customs Tariff for products that may contain impurities?, What are the legal implications of a voidable contract in property transactions, and how might this affect the enforcement of an agreement to sell?, What constitutional challenges can arise regarding the taxation of income from house property, and how did the court address these issues in this case?, source_sentence: **1. Key Legal Issues and Holdings:**

* **Dues of Government Company:** The main legal issue is whether the dues of a government company are government dues under Section 537(2) of the Companies Act, 1956.
* **Attachment of Property:** The court considered whether an attachment of property by a Revenue Recovery Court creates a charge in the property under Section 125 of the Companies Act, 1956.
* **Applicability of Special Statutes:** The court held that special statutes, such as the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968, shall prevail over the Companies Act, 1956, but only to the extent that they are applicable.
* **Conflict between Statutes:** The court considered the conflict between the Companies Act, 1956, and the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968, in relation to the attachment of property and the creation of a charge.

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

* The appellant, a government company, provided a loan to M/s Concert Capital Limited and its sister concern, M/s Concert Securities Limited.
* The defaulting companies failed to repay the loan, and a recovery proceeding was initiated against them under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968.
* The properties of the defaulting companies were attached, and the appellant sought leave to proceed with the sale of the properties.
* The High Court rejected the appellant's application, and the Division Bench confirmed the decision.

**3. Court's Ruling:**

* The Supreme Court held that an attachment of property by a Revenue Recovery Court does not create a charge in the property under Section 125 of the Companies Act, 1956.
* The court also held that the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, shall apply to the recovery proceeding, but only to the extent that they are not inconsistent with the special statutes, such as the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968.
* The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the decision of the High Court.

**4. Citations:**

* **International Coach Builders Ltd. v. Karnataka State Financial Corpn.**, (2003) 10 SCC 482
* **Rajasthan State Financial Corpn. v. Official Liquidator**, (2005) 8 SCC 190
* **ICICI Bank Ltd. v. SIDCO Leathers Ltd.**, (2006) 10 SCC 452
* **Sardar Govindrao Mahadik v. Devi Sahai**, (1982) 1 SCC 237
* **Ovation International (India) (P) Ltd., Re**, (1969) 39 Comp Cas 595 (Bom)
sentences: What are the implications of Hindu Law on joint family property and the rights of family members in cases of property sale?, What legal implications arise from the attachment of properties by a Revenue Recovery Court concerning the creation of charges under the Companies Act?, What are the requirements for a valid gift under Indian law, particularly in relation to acceptance and possession?, source_sentence: **1. Key Legal Issues and Holdings:**

* **Construction of a Will:** The main legal issue is the interpretation of the will left by Kothandarama Ayyar, a Hindu inhabitant of the district of Tanjore, to determine the disposition of his properties.
* **Adoption and Inheritance:** The case revolves around the application of the will's provisions regarding adoption and inheritance, particularly with regards to the properties in dispute.
* **Construction of Specific Provisions:** The court considered the construction of specific provisions in the will, including Paras 5, 13, and other relevant paragraphs.

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

* The testator, Kothandarama Ayyar, died on 25-4-1905, leaving behind his widow, Parbati, and two daughters, Nagammal and Gnanambal.
* The testator executed his last will on 13-3-1905, giving his widow authority to adopt a son of Gnanambal or a nephew's son of the testator.
* The will provides for the distribution of the testator's properties among his family members and charities.
* The dispute revolves around the properties in Kothangudi and Injigudi, which are mentioned in Paras 5 and 13 of the will.

**3. Court's Ruling:**

* The Supreme Court upheld the construction of the will by the High Court, which held that Para 5 of the will was not operative in the present case.
* The court rejected the argument that Para 5 was meant to be operative only if Gnanambal's son was adopted by the widow.
* The court held that the testator's main desire was that his widow should adopt the son of his daughter Gnanambal, and that the provisions made for the two daughters, the widow, and the adoptive mother were meant to be applicable under all three contingencies referred to in the will.
* The court allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgment and decree of the High Court, and restored the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge.

**4. Citations:**

* **Venkata Narasimha Appa Row v. Parthasarathy Appa Row**, Privy Council
* **Edwards, In re, Jones v. Jones**, Romer, L.J.
* **Venkata Narasimha Appa Row v. Parthasarathy Appa Row**, (1913-14) 41 IA 51
* **Jones v. Jones**, (1906) 1 Ch 570 (CA)
sentences: What legal standards govern the determination of seniority between direct recruits and promotees in law enforcement agencies in India?, How does the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent & Eviction) Act, 1972 determine the applicability of rent control laws to newly constructed buildings?, In cases involving wills, how do courts balance the testator's intentions with the rights of surviving family members?
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: SentenceTransformer based on BAAI/bge-base-en-v1.5
results: task: type: information-retrieval
name: Information Retrieval
dataset: name: dim 768
type: dim_768
metrics: type: cosine_accuracy@1
value: 0.01730103806228374
name: Cosine Accuracy@1
verified: no, type: cosine_accuracy@3
value: 0.5271049596309112
name: Cosine Accuracy@3
verified: no, type: cosine_accuracy@5
value: 0.5547866205305652
name: Cosine Accuracy@5
verified: no, type: cosine_accuracy@10
value: 0.734717416378316
name: Cosine Accuracy@10
verified: no, type: cosine_precision@1
value: 0.01730103806228374
name: Cosine Precision@1
verified: no, type: cosine_precision@3
value: 0.1757016532103037
name: Cosine Precision@3
verified: no, type: cosine_precision@5
value: 0.11095732410611302
name: Cosine Precision@5
verified: no, type: cosine_precision@10
value: 0.0734717416378316
name: Cosine Precision@10
verified: no, type: cosine_recall@1
value: 0.01730103806228374
name: Cosine Recall@1
verified: no, type: cosine_recall@3
value: 0.5271049596309112
name: Cosine Recall@3
verified: no, type: cosine_recall@5
value: 0.5547866205305652
name: Cosine Recall@5
verified: no, type: cosine_recall@10
value: 0.734717416378316
name: Cosine Recall@10
verified: no, type: cosine_ndcg@10
value: 0.352689074380117
name: Cosine Ndcg@10
verified: no, type: cosine_mrr@10
value: 0.23119313084711088
name: Cosine Mrr@10
verified: no, type: cosine_map@100
value: 0.239821435624779
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: 0.01384083044982699
name: Cosine Accuracy@1
verified: no, type: cosine_accuracy@3
value: 0.5224913494809689
name: Cosine Accuracy@3
verified: no, type: cosine_accuracy@5
value: 0.5501730103806228
name: Cosine Accuracy@5
verified: no, type: cosine_accuracy@10
value: 0.7277970011534025
name: Cosine Accuracy@10
verified: no, type: cosine_precision@1
value: 0.01384083044982699
name: Cosine Precision@1
verified: no, type: cosine_precision@3
value: 0.17416378316032297
name: Cosine Precision@3
verified: no, type: cosine_precision@5
value: 0.11003460207612456
name: Cosine Precision@5
verified: no, type: cosine_precision@10
value: 0.07277970011534025
name: Cosine Precision@10
verified: no, type: cosine_recall@1
value: 0.01384083044982699
name: Cosine Recall@1
verified: no, type: cosine_recall@3
value: 0.5224913494809689
name: Cosine Recall@3
verified: no, type: cosine_recall@5
value: 0.5501730103806228
name: Cosine Recall@5
verified: no, type: cosine_recall@10
value: 0.7277970011534025
name: Cosine Recall@10
verified: no, type: cosine_ndcg@10
value: 0.3494776306062529
name: Cosine Ndcg@10
verified: no, type: cosine_mrr@10
value: 0.2289238571245499
name: Cosine Mrr@10
verified: no, type: cosine_map@100
value: 0.2378257173312991
name: Cosine Map@100
verified: no
Likes: 0 | All-time downloads: 137
Created: 2024-11-01 18:01:39