L-NLProc/TathyaNyaya-and-FactLegalLlama-NyayaScrape-Datasets huggingface dataset:
P.E.C. Limited Through Its General ... vs Austbulk Shipping Sdn Bhd

The Appellant submitted a brief response but did not participate in the arbitration. The Arbitrator proceeded and finally awarded US $ 150,362.18 to the Respondent with interest at the rate of 8% per annum compounded at three- monthly intervals from 1st July, 2000 till the date of payment.

5. The Respondent filed a petition for enforcement of the award dated 30.05.2001 passed by the sole Arbitrator 5 Mr. William Robertson, in the High Court of Delhi. The Appellant filed its objections to the enforcement petition. The High Court observed that the award sought to be enforced was made at London and that United Kingdom was a party to the New York Convention. The United Kingdom is also a reciprocating territory and a notification was issued to that effect. The High Court also took note of the fact that a duly certified copy of the arbitration agreement was placed on record by the Appellant along with the reply filed by it. Further, the High Court observed that admittedly the Respondent placed on record the original Charter Party agreement which contained the arbitration clause during the course of the enforcement proceedings. The main point that was considered by the High Court was the maintainability of the petition for enforcement of the award without an authenticated copy of the original agreement being filed at the time of presentation of the application. The High Court was of the view that there was substantial compliance with the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) as a certified copy of the arbitration agreement was placed on record by both the 6 parties. According to the High Court, the application filed for enforcement under Section 47 of the Act was in the nature of an execution and in case the relevant documents were not filed along with the application, the adjudicating forum has an obligation to return the same for compliance with the requirements of the Act. Re-filing of the Petition after curing defects is not barred by any law.

7. The judgment of the High Court was passed on 18.02.2005 and notice was issued by us in this appeal on 15.04.2005. We stayed the execution on 29.08.2005.

14 the legal regime governing international commercial arbitration9.

24. For the aforementioned reasons, the judgment of the High Court is upheld and the appeal is dismissed. No costs.
Mahatma Gandhi Sahakra Sakkare ... vs National Heavy Engg. Coop. Ltd. And Anr

Bank guarantees were required to be furnished by the respondent in terms of the agreement. The case of the appellant is that the first respondent failed to commission the plant in terms of the agreement. The appellant sent a notice dated 26th April, 2003 duly putting the respondent on notice of its failure to commission the plant by the scheduled date i.e. 11th February, 2001 and other revised dates, i.e., 26th January, 2002, 25th November, 2002, 28th February, 2003 and 25th April, 2003. Thereafter, a meeting was held between the parties at the intervention of the Government of Karnataka on 1st July, 2003 where both the parties had agreed as hereunder:

The first respondent in terms of the agreement reached between the parties furnished a bank guarantee for a sum of Rs. 92.40 lakhs dated 4th July, 2003. The appellant on its part released Rs. 140.41 lakhs on 5th July, 2003.

The case of the appellant is that the trial crushing did not start even as on 28th / 29th July, 2003; no doubt, the trial crushing commenced on 26th November, 2003 but the same had to be stopped on 22nd December, 2003 due to defects in the turbo alternator. The appellant addressed letter dated 27th December, 2003 to the respondent regarding non-supply, defective erection and non-commissioning of the plant by the first respondent. It is not necessary to notice further details in this regard as there is any amount of controversy between the parties as regards non-compliance with the terms and conditions of the agreement. Each is accusing the other of breach of terms of agreement. The appellant, however, relied upon the detailed report dated 16th January, 2004 furnished by National Federation of Co-operative Sugar Factories Ltd., the consultants to the project, in support of the plea that the trial run was unsuccessful and incomplete. The appellant stated on account of the teething problems the appellant could not undertake the crushing of sugarcane leading to heavy losses.

Be it as it may, the Board of Directors of the appellant Society resolved in its meeting dated 13th March, 2004 to invoke the bank guarantee of Rs. 92.40 furnished by the first respondent. The appellant accordingly sent a letter requesting the Commissioner of Cane Development and Director of Sugar to counter sign the invocation letter on the ground that the respondent herein had failed to commission the plant as agreed.

We do not propose to burden this judgment of ours with various other authoritative pronouncements on this very subject.
Mysore Urban Dev.Authority By Its Comm vs Veer Kumar Jain & Ors

2. On 15.3.1990, a preliminary Notification under section 17 of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987 (`KUDA Act' for short) was issued by the Mysore Urban Development Authority - the appellant herein (`MUDA' for short), proposing to acquire certain lands for development of Kuvempunagar residential layout and formation of a double Road. This was followed by a final declaration dated 24.5.1991 under Section 19(1) of the KUDA Act by the state government stating that it had 2 granted sanction of the scheme and that the land proposed to be acquired by MUDA for the purposes of the scheme is required for a public purpose. The said final declaration was challenged and quashed by the High Court with liberty to proceed afresh from the stage of consideration of representations. After considering the representations, a fresh final declaration was issued on 4.10.1999. In pursuance of it, an Award was made on 16.10.2000 and possession of the lands was taken on 8th/9th December 2000. A notification dated 14.12.2000 was issued under section 16(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (`LA Act' for short) confirming that possession of the lands had been taken over. In view of the above, MUDA claims that the acquired lands vested in the government and later in MUDA.

Once the possession is taken, the state government had no power or authority to issue a notification under section 48(1) of the LA Act and therefore, the order dated 15.9.2001 is void and non est and reviving such a notification would amount to perpetuation of illegality.

15. In view of the above, we allow this appeal and modify the orders of the High Court. Both the notifications dated 22.7.2002 and 15.9.2001 are quashed and the state government is directed to hear the request of the landowners for de-notification afresh. It will be open to the landowners to place such material as is available to them to show that the possession was 13 not taken in regard to lands in question, and thereby rebut the presumption raised in view of Section 16(2) of LA Act; and then establish that circumstances warrant de-notification. On the other hand, it will be also open to MUDA also to establish that possession was in fact taken and that power under section 48(1) could not therefore be exercised. The state government shall hear both the parties and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within four months. Status quo will be maintained in regard to lands in question by the parties till then.

____________________J.

( R.V. RAVEENDRAN ) ____________________J.

( R.M. LODHA ) New Delhi;

April 1, 2010.
L.N. Aswathama And Anr vs P. Prakash

3. In brief, the case of the appellants - plaintiffs is as follows: The suit property was purchased by one Hanumakka, from the state government in the year 1940. She sold the said site to one Bellary Muniswamy Pillai under a sale deed dated 23.9.1940, who in turn sold it to appellants' father Narayanaswamappa under sale deed dated 21.4.1950. The said 2 Narayanaswamappa was registered as the owner of the said plot in the village records and was paying the taxes therefor. Narayanaswamappa suffered a stroke and after a prolonged illness died in December 1966 leaving all his properties to his sons (plaintiffs) under his will dated 15.7.1956. The plaintiffs were unaware that their father owned the said plot, as before and at the time of his death, they were prosecuting their studies and were not conversant with their father's affairs. Their father had taken some loan from Canara Bank and as security therefor had mortgaged the said site and other properties. The Bank obtained a decree for sale of the mortgaged properties. The plaintiffs became aware of the suit property only after they cleared the loan due to the Bank and got back the various title deeds deposited with the Bank on 9.1.1984. Thereafter, they took steps to trace the suit property and collect the necessary papers and found that the defendant who had no right or title was in possession of the said property by putting some temporary unauthorized structure for tethering cattle. The appellants, therefore, filed the said suit.

26. We therefore allow this appeal with costs, set aside the judgment and decree of the High Court and restore the judgment and decree passed by the trial court.

__________________J [R. V. Raveendran] __________________J [Harjit Singh Bedi] New Delhi;

April 21, 2009.
R. Mahalakshmi vs A. Kanchana And Ors

The Appellant is the Fourth defendant in O.S. No. 666 of 2001 filed by her brother Sri A. V. Venkataraman for partition and allotment of a share of 6/20 in the property in the Court of Additional Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu. Defendants No. 1 to 3 are the sisters of the Appellant. It was averred in the plaint that the suit property was an ancestral property inherited by the father of the Plaintiff, Sri A.V. Venkataraman, by a partition deed dated 27.04.1954. Sri A.V. Venkataraman died in 1961 leaving his wife Smt. A.V. Rathnabai, the Plaintiff and the defendants. According to the Plaintiff he was entitled to a share of 6/20, the Second and Fourth defendants 6/20 share each and First and Third defendants 1/20 share each of the suit property. Section 29 A of the Hindu Succession (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 1989 was inserted w.e.f. 15.03.1989 by which the daughter of a coparcener shall by birth became a coparcener in her own right in the same manner as a son and was given the same rights in the coparcenery property which the son had. Defendants 1 and 3 married prior to the amendment and so they were entitled to 1/20 share. The Appellant married after the amendment and Defendant No.2 did not marry as she was paralyzed in an accident due to which they were entitled to 6/20 share. The Appellant filed a written statement claiming a share of 36/90.

2. The Additional Sub Judge, Chengalpattu by his judgment dated 27.07.2004 decreed the suit holding that the Plaintiff, the Second Defendant and the Fourth defendant (Appellant) were entitled to a share of 6/20 each and First and Third defendants were entitled to a share of 1/20 each in the suit property. The Appellant preferred A.S. No. 39 of 2006 in which she stated that the Plaintiff omitted other properties which were available for partition and that the suit for partial partition was bad in law. The Principal District Judge, Chengalpattu dismissed A. S. No.39 of 2006 by a judgment dated 20.11.2006. The Appellant approached the High Court of Judicature at Madras by filing Second Appeal No.1168 of 2007 which was also dismissed on 01.11.2007.

6. C.M.A. Nos. 3041 of 2014 and 3042 of 2014 were filed by Respondents No. 1 and 2 herein (Plaintiffs No. 2 and 3 in the suit) and C.M.A. Nos.3043 of 2014 and 3044 of 2014 were filed by Respondents No. 4 and 5 herein (Defendants No. 1 and 3 in the suit) in the High Court of Judicature at Madras challenging the judgment dated 09.07.2014 in A. S. 3 of 2011 and A. S. No. 9 of 2013. The High Court allowed the CMAs, set aside the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court and granted a preliminary decree in the suit for partition by declaring that the Plaintiffs were entitled for 5/8 share jointly and Defendants 1, 3 and 4 were entitled to 1/8 share in the suit house property. Aggrieved by the said judgment of the High Court, the Appellant has filed the above Civil Appeals.

10. For the aforementioned reasons, the Civil Appeals are allowed. No orders as to costs.
Union Of India Through Cabinet ... vs Captain Gurdev Singh

2. Vide the judgment dated 07.05.2007 (henceforth “the impugned judgment”), the appellants herein, i.e. the Union of India and the Ministries of Defence, External Affairs and Finance, were directed to award parity between the Bhutan Compensatory Digitally signed by MAHABIR SINGH Date: 2019.02.12 Allowance payable to the Indian Military Training Team (in short, 16:18:25 IST Reason:

3. The facts leading to the instant appeal are as follows:

4. There was a demand by IMTRAT personnel for the removal of the depression being imposed upon the BCA being paid to them, which was rejected by the Fifth Central Pay Commission. The issue was thereafter considered by a High Level Committee, which recommended reconsideration of the demand, which was subsequently considered by a Group of Officers chaired by the Cabinet Secretary. The Group of Officers recommended, vide its report submitted on 05.07.1999, that IMTRAT service personnel should be paid the BCA at the same rate as their civilian counterparts, and the existing depression be done away with, subject to the levy of appropriate charges on the facilities that were hitherto free. These recommendations of the Group of 3 Officers were accepted vide the Cabinet decision dated 30.11.1999.

8. The Union of India sought multiple opportunities to comply with the order, in which interregnum, the Ministry of Defence issued a corrigendum on 23.02.2006 to its order dated 20.09.2005, directing that the removal of depression and recovery of charges at the specified rates be given retrospective effect from 01.12.1999.

9. However, in its order dated 07.03.2006, the High Court observed that although one part of the directions in the original order had been complied with, the “remaining part” of the directions was still unimplemented, and granted further time for such compliance. After this order, an additional affidavit was filed by the MEA, claiming that with the issue of the corrigendum making the removal of depression effective from 01.12.1999, the directions issued in the original order had been effectively complied with. It was further stated that the direction with respect to periodic revision of the BCA had also been taken note of, and such revisions would be duly considered from time to 7 time. It was also placed on record that IMTRAT personnel were being paid the same BCA as other Indian civilian personnel in Bhutan (i.e. the second category of personnel mentioned supra).

32. Accordingly, we allow the instant appeal in part and set aside the impugned judgment dated 07.05.2007 with the aforementioned directions.

February 11, 2019.
M/S Terai Tea Company Limited vs Kumkum Mittal

3. The brief facts of the case are that one Dhirendra Nath Bhowmick (since deceased), as the sole proprietor and Digitally signed by GULSHAN KUMAR ARORA perpetual lessee had agreed to sell a tea estate namely, M/s. Date: 2019.10.22 16:25:14 IST Reason: Dharanipur Tea Estate comprising of a tea garden measuring 1 about 1140.59 acres in favour of the appellant-plaintiff along with all the liabilities on a consideration of Rs. 10,11,000/- and he executed an agreement to sell to that effect on 15 th January, 1990 after accepting a part consideration amount of Rs. 2,11,000/-. Dhirendra Nath Bhowmick failed and/or neglected and/or refused to fulfil his obligations under the said agreement to sell dated 15th January, 1990, by not executing and registering the Deed of conveyance within the time specified, despite the appellant-plaintiff being fully ready and willing to discharge its part of obligations including the payment of balance consideration amount on or before 15 th March,1990.

13. The indisputed facts which can easily be discernible from the records are that in reference to the suit property, there was an agreement to sell dated 15th January, 1990 executed by late Dhirendra Nath Bhowmick in favour of appellant-plaintiff for the sale of tea estate namely, M/s. Dharanipur Tea Estate for a consideration of Rs. 10,11,000/- for which part payment of Rs. 2,11,000/- was made and since late Dhirendra Nath 7 Bhowmick failed to fulfil his obligation, suit for specific performance no. 240 of 1990 at the instance of the appellant came to be instituted. In the said pending suit no. 240 of 1990, since the interim injunction was refused, appeal came to be preferred and during pendency of the appeal, the parties to the proceedings entered into a compromise and the Division Bench of the High Court vide its order dated 2 nd August, 1991 granted consent decree on enhancement of a consideration from original amount of Rs. 10,11,000/- to Rs. 12,11,000/-. In sequel thereto, the deed of conveyance was executed on 3 rd August, 1991 and stamp duty of Rs. 1,85,000/- was paid by the appellant and full consideration of Rs. 12,11,000/- was paid by the appellant to Dhirendra Nath Bhowmick.

18. Consequently, the appeals deserve to succeed and are accordingly allowed. The judgment of the Division Bench of the 11 High Court dated 13th April, 2017 is hereby quashed and set aside. No costs.

19. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
Het Ram Beniwal & Ors vs Raghuveer Singh & Ors

The Appellants were found guilty of committing contempt by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur. Simple imprisonment of two months and fine of Rs. 2,000/- each was imposed. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the Appellants have filed these Criminal Appeals. The Appellants along with Sheopat Singh belong to the Marxist Communist Party. Sheopat Singh died during the pendency of these proceedings. It is relevant to mention that Appellants Nos. 2 and 3 are advocates. A prominent trade union activist of Sri Ganganagar District Shri Darshan Koda was murdered on 18.12.2000. Some of the accused were granted anticipatory bail in February, 2001 by the High Court of Rajasthan. The Appellants addressed a huge gathering of their party workers in front of the Collectorate at Sri Ganganagar on 23.02.2001. While addressing the gathering, the Appellants made scandalous statements against the High Court which were published in Lok Sammat newspaper on 24.02.2001. The offending statements made by the Appellants (from the translated version) are summarized as under:

Explanation.-For the purpose of sub-sections (4) and (5),-

Criminal Appeal No. 464 of 2006, which concerns the same facts as reported in another newspaper, stands disposed of in terms of Criminal Appeal No.463 of 2006.

We record our appreciation for the assistance rendered by Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, Advocate as Amicus Curiae.
Jyoti Mishra vs Dhananjaya Mishra

3. The petitioner is the estranged wife of the respondent. While still living with him at Hyderabad, she had filed a written report before the Station House Officer, P.S. Alwal, Secunderabad, that led to the institution of FIR No. 470/2009 dated September 09, 2009 under Section 498-A of the Penal Code citing her husband Dhananjaya Mishra (the sole respondent) and five others as accused. The Police, after investigation, submitted charge sheet and the proceedings against the accused are now pending before the VIth Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad in CC No. 804/2009.

5. The first thing that needs to be noticed is that in the Transfer Petitions only the husband Dhananjaya Mishra is impleaded as respondent. The other accused in the criminal case are not made parties to these Transfer Petitions. The Transfer Petitions are, therefore, liable to be dismissed on that score alone.

8. For all these reasons, we are not inclined to accept the prayer for transfer in these cases.

9. The Transfer Petitions are dismissed.
Soma Suresh Kumar vs Government Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors

7. We notice that the State of Andhra Pradesh was contemplating a legislation similar to one enacted in the State of Tamil Nadu, for a long time. On many occasions, the State’s attention was drawn, to the large scale diversion of money by many financial institutions in the State, by cheating the depositors of their hard-earned savings, misappropriating the same and then later vanishing from the scene. Several cases were booked against the persons responsible for the same, but the presence of a comprehensive legislation to curb such unfair practice was lacking. This was the reason for the State of Andhra Pradesh to enact the Andhra Act. The Statement of Objects & Reasons of the Act read as under :-

14. In the circumstances, we find no merit in these Writ Petitions and the same are accordingly dismissed.
Moni Shankar vs Union Of India And Another

3. Appellant herein was working as Booking Supervisor with the Central Railways. He was transferred to Chatrapati Shivaji Terminus in December, 1997. On or about 17th April, 1998 a decoy check was laid in the course whereof he was found to have overcharged a sum of Rs.5/- on the ticket issued to a decoy passenger. A departmental proceeding was initiated wherein the following imputations of charges were drawn :-

5. Appellant was found guilty of the said charges in the said departmental proceeding. A penalty of reduction to the lowest scale of pay fixing his pay at the lowest level at Rs.3,200/- for a period of five years was imposed. An appeal and consequently a revision preferred by him were dismissed by the Appellate Authority as also the Revisional Authority by orders dated 31st May, 2000 and 7th November, 2000 respectively.

6. He filed an O.A. before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench. It was registered as O.A. No. 283 of 2002.

7. Aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said judgment of the Tribunal, the respondents filed a writ petition before the High Court. By reason of the impugned judgment dated 8th March, 2006 the said writ petition was allowed by the High Court opining that the Central Administrative Tribunal in its original order having entered into the realm of evidence and re-appreciated the same, exceeded its jurisdiction.

21. Dr. Padia would submit that the jurisdiction of the Tribunal was limited and as some evidence was adduced, the Tribunal should not have interfered with the order of punishment imposed upon the appellant.

27. The impugned judgment, therefore, cannot be sustained. It is set aside accordingly and that of the Tribunal restored. The appeal is allowed with costs. Counsel fee assessed at Rs.25,000/-.
Devki Amma(D) By L.Rs. & Ors Etc. Etc vs State Of Kerala & Anr.Etc. Etc

The land of the appellants was acquired by notification dated 18 th January, 1991 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [for short, "the Act"]. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.5,163/- per cent for garden land and Rs.3,600/- for wet land. The Reference Court fixed the compensation for garden land at Rs.14,000/- per cent and for wet land at Rs.11,000/- per cent. In the appeal preferred by the State of Kerala and others against the award of the Reference Court, the High Court reduced the rate of compensation for garden land from Rs.14,000/- per cent to Rs.12,000/- per cent and for wet land from Rs.11,000/- per cent to Rs. 8,000/- per cent. Hence, these appeals.

Accordingly, the appeals are allowed and the impugned judgment rendered by the High Court is set aside and the same passed by the Reference Court is restored. Needless to say that the appellants shall be entitled to all statutory benefits.

No costs.