L-NLProc/TathyaNyaya-and-FactLegalLlama-NyayaScrape-Datasets huggingface dataset:
State Bank Of Bikaner & Jaipur vs Nemi Chand Nalwaya

R. V. Raveendran J., The respondent was employed as a clerk in the Kalindri branch of the appellant Bank. He was issued a charge-sheet dated 30.8.1988. The two charges against him are extracted below :

The charge-sheet followed a preliminary enquiry by one H. S. Sharma, an officer of the appellant bank, in which the respondent broadly admitted the facts constituting the subject matter of the two charges.

3. In the meanwhile, on the basis of a complaint by the Branch Manager, a charge-sheet was filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirohi, in regard to the allegations which were the subject matter of the departmental enquiry. The criminal court acquitted the respondent by judgment dated 7.7.1994, holding that charges were not proved beyond doubt. Thereafter, he filed a writ petition (WP No.5761/1994) challenging his dismissal, on the ground that he was acquitted in the criminal case. The said writ petition was disposed of by a brief order dated 26.5.1997 observing that he may avail the remedy of appeal and the appellate authority may consider the explanation for delay in submitting the appeal.

4. The respondent filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority, with an application for condonation of delay. The appellate authority, by order dated 7.10.1997, dismissed the application for condonation of delay and consequently dismissed the appeal.

10. We are, therefore, of the view that the High Court was not justified in quashing the punishment and directing reinstatement with backwages and consequential benefits. In fact, the order of the High Court directing back wages amounts to rewarding a person who has been found guilty of a misconduct.

11. However having regard to the fact that the proven charge did not involve either misappropriation or fraudulent conduct and the other circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the punishment of dismissal should be substituted by compulsory retirement, which does not involve reinstatement.

12. We, accordingly, allow the appeal and set aside the judgment of the High Court. We uphold the finding of guilt recorded by the disciplinary authority, but modify the punishment from `dismissal' to `compulsory retirement'. There is therefore no question of grant of any back-wages.
M/S. Gujarat Ambuja Exports Ltd & Anr vs State Of Uttarakhand & Ors

The brief facts of the case required by us to appreciate the rival legal contentions advanced on behalf of the parties are stated here under:

In view of the findings and reasons recorded in Point No.1 supra, the impugned common judgment and order upholding the validity of the amendment to Section 27(c)(iii) of the Act is set aside. Section 27(c)(iii) of the Act is struck down. The consequential action of issuing notice of demand and any other orders passed against the appellants are hereby quashed. However, Section 27(c)(iv) is hereby upheld. This Court makes it very clear that the purchaser must prove that the agricultural produce is brought from other State which is an interstate sale, and is in accordance with the provisions of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930.

These Civil Appeals are allowed in the above terms. No costs.
M/S United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs Ram Prakash Raturi

3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the National Commission failed to take notice of several aspects. Firstly, in the notice issued by Mr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate on behalf of Shri Abdul Gaffar, an affidavit was filed where the respondent no.1 had clearly stated that he had no objection if the payment of amount for the accident claim of the vehicle is given to Smt. Roopa Sharma. This notice was issued on 17.11.2000. On 12.7.2001 another notice was issued on behalf of Ram Prakash Raturi, the respondent herein wherein it was stated that the said Ram Prakash Raturi was the registered owner of the vehicle which had been purchased by him from Smt. Roopa Sharma and the necessary changes to the effect in the records of RTO, Dehradun were made and endorsement to this effect was also made in the registration certificate of the aforesaid vehicle on 17.2.1995. It was stated that after verification of several documents cover note was issued which covered the period from 16.9.1999 to 15.9.2000. If, as indicated in the notice, the transfer was affected on 17.2.1995, the question of issuing the cover note/policy in the name of Smt. Roopa Sharma in the year 1999 did not arise. It was also pointed out that in the Motor claim form filed by respondent no.1, he claimed to be the insured. All these clearly indicated that the respondent had not established that he had any insurable claim.

(Underlined for emphasis)

8. In the circumstances, we set aside the order of the National Commission and remit the matter to it for a fresh consideration in accordance with law.

9. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. No costs.
Santosh @ Santukrao vs State Of Maharashtra

7. Homicidal nature of death of the deceased and sufferance of injuries by P.W. 1 is not in dispute. Deceased had suffered two stab injuries, one on the middle of his back and other on his chest. As indicated hereinbefore, in the First Information Report itself, it has been alleged that the deceased was assaulted with a sharp edged weapon from the back first and later on he was chased and killed. Sufferance of a large number of injuries by P.W. 1 Sandhu is also not in dispute as would be evident from the medical report.

14. For the reasons aforementioned, we do not find any merit in this appeal which is dismissed accordingly.
Santosh Kumar vs State Of M.P

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the prosecutrix Halki Bai, who was resident of village Modakpur had been deserted by her husband and in order to maintain herself she was doing some work as labour. She came by a bus to Silvani in search of work in the night of 20.5.1985. After she had boarded the bus the conductor Munim Mishra enquired where she was going and when she informed him that she was going to Silvani in search of some work, he did not ask for money for issuing to her a ticket. The bus reached Silvani at about 10.00 p.m. and when she was trying to get down, Munim Mishra told her that she may sleep in the bus itself rather than going anywhere in the night and in the morning he would arrange some work for her. Halki Bai then slept on the rear seat of the bus. At about midnight, when all the shops at the bus stand had closed, the driver of the bus, viz. Santosh Kumar (appellant) pressed her breasts and started removing her dhoti which she was wearing. When she tried to raise an alarm, Munim Mishra caught hold of her hands and also gagged her and then the appellant Santosh Kumar ravished her. Thereafter, Santosh Kumar caught hold of her hands and Munim Mishra ravished her. Hearing her alarm, three constables who were on patrol duty and some others came near the bus, but both the accused managed to run away. The policemen brought Halki Bai to P.S. Silvani, where she lodged the FIR of the incident at 1.00 a.m. on 21.5.1985. Halki Bai was sent for medical examination where PW.3 Dr. Z. Fezi examined her at 2.00 a.m. and prepared a medical examination report which is Ex. P-8. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was submitted against both the accused viz. Santosh Kumar (appellant) and Munim Mishra.

3. The learned Sessions Judge framed charge under Section 376 IPC against both the accused, who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In order to establish its case, the prosecution examined 10 witnesses and filed some documentary evidence. The appellant and co-accused Munim Mishra in their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the prosecution case and examined two witnesses in their defence. The learned Sessions Judge believed the case of the prosecution and convicted and sentenced both the accused as stated earlier. The appeal preferred by the accused was dismissed by the High Court by the judgment and order dated 13.12.2004.

Hymen Torn, several small granular tags present, no fresh tear present. Fourchette and posterior commissure are intact.

Opinion (1) No definite opinion regarding rape can be given till report of vaginal smear is available.

10. Having given our careful consideration to the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has established its case against the appellant beyond any shadow of doubt. The learned Sessions Judge and the High Court have rightly convicted the appellant under Section 376(2)(g) IPC and there is absolutely no ground which may warrant interference by this Court. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Rajesh Kumar Dwivedi vs State Of Up

2. An advertisement was issued on 17th March, 2008 by the Directorate of Training and Employment, Lucknow, U.P. inviting applications for the various posts of Instructors in the Government Industrial Training Institute of the State. The appellant applied for the post of Instructor in the subject of Fitter. The educational eligibility condition prescribed for the said post was a certificate in 1 concerned trade from National Council of Vocational Training 1 apart from two years’ experience in any industry or training/educational institute, either before or after getting instructor training. The appellant applied for such post on the basis of the following educational qualifications:

3. The appellant was found not eligible for the reason that he does not possess two years course from NCVT. The High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant for the reason that three different courses undertaken by the appellant cannot be treated as equivalent to the qualification prescribed under the Rules.

4. The appellant relies upon Circular issued by Ministry of Labour & Rehabilitation, Government of India on 16 th December, 1983 giving equivalency between various disciplines under Restructured 1 for short, NCVT 2 for short, MITI 2 Pattern and Conventional Pattern of Craftsmen Training Scheme. The said Circular clarifies that a candidate having basic course of Mechanical Trade of one year, Fitting General Module of six months and Metrology and Engineering Inspection Module of six months was treated to be equivalent to Fitter of two years training. Subsequently, the State Government vide communication dated 18th August, 1988 issued directions for considering the eligibility of training obtained from MITI, Haldwani for services and posts under State Government. The same is reproduced hereunder:

11. Since we have found that candidature of the appellant was rejected on the ground that he was not possessing educational qualification, 7 therefore, the State Government is directed to take proper steps for appointment of the appellant in accordance with law within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this Judgment. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed.

DECEMBER 06, 2019.
Sameer Kumar Pal & Anr vs Sheikh Akbar & Ors

3. Brief facts necessary to dispose of this appeal are recapitulated as under:

13. In this view of the matter, we are constrained to set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court. The High Court was not justified in reversing the concurrent findings of fact in this case. Consequently, the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside and that the judgment and order of the trial court, as affirmed by the first appellate court, is restored. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are directed to bear their own costs.

July 28, 2010
Commissioner Of Customs,New Customs ... vs M/S.Vishal Exports Overseas Limited

The assessee exported 4.8 lakh pieces of coffee mugs between February and November, 2001. The export price (FOB) was US $3.40 per piece. The exported goods were eligible for Duty Entitlement Pass Book (DEPB) Benefit/Scheme. Accordingly, the same was claimed as per Rules at the rate of 11% or 10%. The assessee had declared a market value of Rs.52.50 per piece which was worked out at 150% of the assessee's purchase price which was Rs.35/- per piece. These purchases were made from the manufacturers in Rajasthan and as per the clearance documents of Central Excise (AR-4), Rs.35/- was the price per piece. The Assistant Commissioner of Customs proceeded against the assessee by alleging that the assessee had mis-declared the FOB value at US $3.40 (Rs.150/-) per piece. It was the view of the Department that the price was inflated to get more DEPB benefit. The original order ensued wherein it was held that the export price was not genuine considering the local purchase price to be Rs.35/- per piece only. It was held that the export price could not be as high as Rs.157/- (450%) and that it was unlikely that there would be such a vast variation between the domestic price and export price acceptable in the competitive export market. By making his own calculations, the FOB price was computed and fixed at Rs.80/- per piece in place of Rs.157/- per piece by the Assistant Commissioner. It was further ordered that the assessee would be entitled to DEPB credit on the basis of the FOB price of Rs.80/- per piece and not at the sale price. Holding the declared FOB price of Rs.157/- per piece or US $3.40 per piece a mis-declaration, the Assistant Commissioner held that the goods were liable to be confiscated and the penalty under Section 114 of the Customs Act was also ordered.

We have considered the matter in the light of the above contentions.

It was lastly contended that the matter is covered by the decision in Om Prakash Bhatia's case (supra). This was clearly against draw back scheme and not DEPB credit. We have carefully seen the judgment. We do not find that on the basis of the factual scenario therein it applies in any manner to the present controversy. There the factor of over-invoicing was found established. In the present case on the factual aspect also the FOB price could not be said to be inflated. In our opinion the aforementioned judgment would be of no consequence and help to the Revenue. In view of the above we are of the opinion that the appeal has no merits and it must be dismissed. It is accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
Shobhan Singh Khanka vs State Of Jharkhand

3) Brief facts:

(c) The allegations against the appellant, Chairman and other Members of the JPSC are that they provided highest marks to the candidates whom they desire to be selected or appointed by giving undue favour. The appellant is also responsible for conspiracy with the Chairman, Members of the JPSC and the candidates who were given highest marks by the Interview Board. It is also alleged that the appellant is responsible for cutting, manipulation, interpolation in the marks sheet of the Interview Board in order to provide benefit to the candidates for selection and appointment.

(d) The prosecution case in a nutshell is that an enquiry was conducted by the vigilance department regarding the irregularity committed by the Chairman, Members and officers of the JPSC in conducting Second JPSC Civil Services Examination pursuant to advertisement No. 7 of 2005 dated 12.11.2005. It is alleged by the prosecution that the examination was not held in accordance with the guidelines. The Members either have not given declaration regarding their relation appearing in the examination and those who have given declaration have not provided the required details. The further allegation of the prosecution is that there has been manipulation in the numbers awarded to the students. The prosecution examined 22 copies and it has been alleged that they have found manipulation in the answer sheets. It is the further case of the prosecution that there has been large-scale bungling, manipulation, tampering of marks, irregularity in the appointment of Examiners and Members of the Interview Board and the Chairman in connivance with the Members and also in conspiracy with the successful candidates for securing monetary gains to the officials of JPSC in utter disregard to the rules and by practicing corrupt method recommendations for appointment of various persons were made to the Government. Accordingly, a First Information Report (in short "FIR") was lodged against several persons including the appellant.

7) Inasmuch as we are concerned about the eligibility or otherwise relating to grant of anticipatory bail, there is no need to go into all the factual details and arrive a finding one way or the other which will affect the ultimate trial of the case. We have already referred to the offences alleged in the FIR. It is settled law that personal liberty is a precious fundamental right. With this background, we have to see that whether a case has been made out for grant of anticipatory bail.

13) Under these circumstances, the order passed by the Special Judge as well as the High Court dismissing his petition for anticipatory bail are set aside. Accordingly, we direct that in the event of arrest, the appellant shall be released on bail in connection with PS case No. 23 of 2010 corresponding to Special Case No. 23 of 2010, Vigilance PS, Ranchi, Jharkhand subject to the following conditions:-

MARCH 30, 2012.
S.Dinesh Kumar vs State Tr.Inspector & Anr

2. According to the prosecution complainant Jayaramu was the proprietor of Murugan Furniture and Woodworks and because of arrears of sales tax in the sum of Rs.30,302/- the machinery in his factory was sealed. He had therefore filed writ petition in which the High Court had directed the authorities to consider his representation and that upon payment of 50 per cent of the amount in question, the attachment be lifted and the machinery be released in his favour. In this connection he approached the appellant who was then working as Commercial Tax Inspector (Recovery) and was told that for removal of seals, Rs.1,000/- would be required to be paid to the appellant by way of gratification. The complainant then approached Lokayukta Police on 09.07.1993 and lodged his complaint Ext.P-1. After taking requisite steps a trap was laid.

3. On 09.07.1993 the appellant along with his driver (A-2) and peon came to the office of the complainant and demanded the amount of Rs.1,000/-. As directed by the appellant, the complainant gave the amount to the driver (A-

2) who kept the amount with himself. After a signal was given, Lokayukta Police came and caught hold of the appellant as well as the driver (A-2) from whose person the amount of Rs.1,000/- was recovered. On completion of investigation and grant of sanction vide Ext.P-2, the charge sheet was submitted.

4. The Special Judge acquitted the appellant and the driver (A-2) mainly on two grounds. It was observed that the amount of Rs.1,000/- was not given towards the bribe but was paid towards the arrears of tax and that, the machinery having been released in favour of the complainant no work was in fact pending. In the Appeal preferred by the State it was submitted that 50% of the arrears on tax would come to about Rs. 15,000/- and it was unimaginable that the complainant would pay Rs. 1,000/- only towards arrears of tax. It was further submitted that the facts on record would show that the complainant PW1 and shadow witness Umesh PW3 had deposed consistently about the appellant demanding Rs. 1,000/- as bribe and that the amount was paid as per his directions to accused No.2.

8. We, therefore, dismiss this appeal. The bail bonds are cancelled and appellant is directed to surrender within three weeks from today to undergo the remaining sentence.

For Appellant(s) Mr. P. Vishwanatha Shetty, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Shailesh Madiyal, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mrs. Vaijayanthi Girish, Adv.

Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, Adv.

Mr. Parikshit P. Angadi, Adv.

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Uday Umesh Lalit pronounced the non-reportable judgment of the Bench comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dipak Misra, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman and His Lordship.

The appeal is dismissed. The bail bonds are cancelled and appellant is directed to surrender within three weeks from today to undergo the remaining sentence in terms of the signed non-reportable judgment.

(Signed non-reportable judgment is placed on the file)
M/S. Uniworth Textiles Ltd vs Commnr. Of Central Excise, Raipur

6. Therefore, Uniworth Ltd. informed the appellant that it would require the arrangement for running the captive power plant for its own use, and hence, would be compelled to stop the supply of electricity to the appellant. Consequently, as a temporary measure, for overcoming this difficulty, the appellant, while availing the benefit of Notification No. 53/97-Cus, procured furnace oil from Coastal Wartsila Petroleum Ltd., a Foreign Trade Zone unit. It supplied the same to Uniworth Ltd. for generation of electricity, which it continued to receive as before.

27. In view of the afore-going discussion, the appeal is allowed and the decisions of the authorities below are set aside, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
Indian Oil Corp.Ltd.& Ors vs M/S Raja Transport(P) Ltd

2. Under an agreement dated 28.2.2005, the appellant appointed the respondent as its dealer for retail sale of petroleum products. Clause 69 of the said agreement provided for settlement of disputes by arbitration. The said clause reads thus :

3. By letter dated 6.8.2005, the appellant terminated the dealership of the respondent on the recommendation of its Vigilance Department. The respondent filed Suit No.43/2005 in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Rishikesh, Dehradun for a declaration that the order of termination of dealership dated 6.8.2005 was illegal and void and for a permanent injunction restraining the appellant from stopping supply of petroleum products to its retail outlet.

6. When the said appeals were pending, the respondent issued a notice dated 4.1.2006 through its counsel to the appellant, referring to the appellant's insistence that only its Director (Marketing) or an officer nominated by him could act as the arbitrator, in pursuance of the order of the Civil Judge dated 16.11.2005. The respondent alleged that it did not expect fair treatment or justice, if the Director (Marketing) or any other employee of the appellant was appointed as arbitrator, and that therefore any such appointment would be prejudicial to its interest. It contended that any provision enabling one of the parties or his employee to act as an arbitrator was contrary to the fundamental principle of natural justice that no person can be a judge in his own cause. The respondent therefore called upon the appellant by the said notice dated 4.1.2006, to fix a meeting at Dehradun between the officers of the appellant and respondent within seven days so as to mutually agree upon an independent arbitrator. The appellant submits that the said request, apart from being contrary to the arbitration agreement, was also contrary to the subsequent order dated 20.1.2006 which directed that the disputes should be referred to the arbitrator as per the agreement and therefore, it did not agree to the said request for an outside arbitrator.

Re : Question No. (ii)

(emphasis supplied)

Re : Question (iii)

25. In the circumstances, the third question is answered in the negative. Consequently, the learned Chief Justice erred in having proceeded on the basis that the respondent had performed its duty in terms of the arbitration agreement in seeking reference to arbitration and that the appellant had failed to act in the matter and therefore, there was justification for appointing an independent arbitrator.

26. The appellant is therefore entitled to succeed on both the points. The appeal is, therefore, allowed. The order dated 26.9.2008 of the High Court is set aside. The Director (Marketing) of the appellant Corporation is appointed as the sole arbitrator to decide the disputes between the parties.

.............................................J [R. V. Raveendran] .............................................J [D. K. Jain] New Delhi;

August 24, 2009.