L-NLProc/TathyaNyaya-and-FactLegalLlama-NyayaScrape-Datasets huggingface dataset:
Nasib Hussain Sidi & Ors vs State Of Gujarat

4. The genesis of the case of the appellants lies in an incident that took place on 7th September, 2003 at village Chitrod in the District of Kutch, State of Gujarat. The complainant in the case was, during the relevant period, a Constable posted at Chitrod outpost of Police Station Bhimasar. The prosecution case is that at about 10.30 a.m. on 7th September, 2003 when the complainant was on patrol duty, he found one Babubhai quarrelling in public place with one Hussain Ibrahim Siddi, accused no.1. The -

5. At the trial the prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses to support its case. The depositions of these witnesses were found reliable by the Trial Court resulting in the conviction of Hussain Ibrahim for the offence punishable under Section 325 and sentence of five years RI besides a fine of Rs.500/-. In default he was directed to undergo a further sentence of six months. He was also 3 convicted under Section 506(2) of the IPC and sentenced to

The incident itself is nearly ten years old by now. Keeping in view all these circumstances and the fact that Hussain Ibrahim Siddi accused no.1 who was mainly responsible for the grievous injury caused to the constable has already served the sentence awarded to him, we are of the opinion that interest of justice would be sufficiently served if the sentence awarded to the appellants is modified and reduced to the sentence already undergone by them.

8. We order accordingly. The appellants shall be set at liberty forthwith unless required in any other case. The appeal is allowed to the above extent.
Rakesh Mohindra vs Anita Beri & Ors

4. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass.

6. The subject matter of the suit is part of the land defined as Survey No. 41, Kasauli Cantt. Tehsil Kasauli and structures/buildings more specifically known as “Dharma Prakash, Homestead”. One late Sh. Duni Chand Advocate was owner in possession of land comprised in Survey No. 41, measuring 2.31 acres described as “Kildare Estate” Homestead Dharma Prakash. Late Sh. Duni Chand, during his life time executed a gift deed with regard to the property owned by him which was registered as deed No. 2 with Sub Registrar, Kasauli. He gifted his properties to his son Justice late Sh. Tek Chand. Justice late Sh. Tek Chand became owner-in-possession of the suit property. Justice late Sh. Tek Chand expired on 16.6.1996 leaving behind two daughters Smt. Anila Sood and Smt. Anita Beri and one son Sh. Vikram Dhanda. Justice late Sh. Tek Chand during his life time executed a legal and valid ‘will’ in favour of plaintiff No. 2, Smt. Anita Beri, which was duly registered with Sub Registrar Chandigarh, as deed No. 410 dated 19.6.1984. The mother of defendant was step sister of Justice late Sh. Tek Chand. He was using portion of house known as ‘Homestead’ with the permission of plaintiff No. 2, namely, Smt. Anita Beri. She came to know that defendant was misusing the license and raised some illegal construction in the shape of platform, so as to use the same for the purpose of car parking.

25. For the reasons aforesaid, the impugned order passed by the High Court cannot be sustained in law. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the order passed by the High Court is set aside.

26. However, we make it clear that mere admission of secondary evidence, does not amount to its proof. The genuineness, correctness and existence of the document shall have to be established during the trial and the trial court shall record the reasons before relying on those secondary evidences.
Subh Ram & Ors vs Haryana State & Anr

2. Before the Reference Court, claimants relied upon sale deeds marked as Ex.P-1 to P-12 relating to the period 1981 and 1982 (except Ex.P8 which was dated 28.7.1983) which disclosed an average price of Rs.78/85 per sq.yd in Jharsa village. The said sale deeds related to small residential plots varying in size between 167 sq.yards to 665 sq.yds. The Reference Court deducted one-third of such price (that is Rs.26.25) towards development cost and arrived at the market value as Rs.52.60 per sq.yd.during 1981-82. As the market value of the acquired lands had to be determined as on 22.11.1984, the date of notification under section 4(1) of the Act, the reference court increased the said market value of Rs.52/60, at the rate of 12% per annum, for two years (that is, by Rs.12/62) and arrived at a market value of Rs.65/22. The Reference Court was of the view that it should also take note of the sale deed relied on by the LAC, namely Ex. R-2 dated 27.11.1984 which related to sale of one acre of land for Rs.30000/- which worked out to Rs.6.19 per sq.yd. The Reference Court took the average of Rs.65.22 which was the rate disclosed by the sale deeds relied on by the claimants and Rs.6.19 being the rate disclosed by the sale deed relied on by the LAC and awarded the same as compensation. Though the average works out to Rs.35/70, the compensation awarded was Rs.36/20 per sq.yd. This determination was affirmed by the High Court.

5. If Ex R2 is excluded, the average of the prices disclosed by the twelve sale deeds relied on by the claimants, that is Rs.78/85 per sq.yd, would be indicative of the market value in 1981-82. The addition of 12% per annum for two years was not challenged by the respondents. By adding 12% per annum cumulatively for two years, the market value of small residential plots in the area neighbouring the acquired lands of that village, as on 22.11.1984, can be taken as Rs.98/90 per sq.yd. To determine the value of large tract of acquired land, it is necessary to make an appropriate deduction therefrom towards development cost. Having regard to the fact that all the acquired lands adjoin a State Highway (Gurgaon Alwar Road) and the proximate availability of facilities which can be easily accessed for development, it would be appropriate to limit the deduction to 40% towards development cost, instead of the usual higher percentage of deduction ranging from 50% to 67%. Thus, the market value would work out to be Rs.59/34 per sq.yd (Rs.98/90 minus 40%) or Rs.2,87,200/- per acre.

Relevancy of other acquisitions in the same village

Conclusion

15. In view of the above, we allow these appeals in part and increase the compensation for the acquired lands to Rs.2,87,200/- per acre. The appellants will also be entitled to all statutory benefits, that is solatium at 30% under section 23(2) of the Act, additional amount at 12% from the date of preliminary notification to date of award under section 23(1A) of the Act, and interest on the total compensation less the amount awarded by the LAC, at 9% per annum for one year from the date of taking possession and 15% PA thereafter. Parties to bear respective costs.
Bishwanath Prasad Singh vs Rajendra Prasad & Anr

The said suit was dismissed holding that the deed of sale dated 24.6.1977 coupled with the said agreement of reconveyance of the same date did not constitute a mortgage. It was further held that the remedy available to the respondents was only to file a suit for specific performance of the contract and as such a relief had not been availed of by them within a period of three years, no relief could be granted in their favour. The appeal preferred by the respondents herein thereagainst was also dismissed.

The respondents thereafter filed a second appeal before the High Court which was allowed by the impugned judgment.

The High Court in its judgment came to the conclusion that the recital of both the documents spelt out that the real intention of the parties was that the transaction was to be one of mortgage holding that the said deed of mortgage was executed by the respondents in favour of the appellant for the purpose of securing a loan of Rs.3,000/-. It was also held that the agreement for sale dated 24.6.1977 did not have the efficacy to control the import of the recitals made in the said conveyance dated 24.6.1977.

The question of determination of being a pure question of law, the principles of res judicata shall have no application. Therefore, the High Court, in our opinion committed a manifest error in interfering with the judgment and decree passed by the trial court as also the appellate court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code.

For the reasons aforementioned, the impugned judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained. It is set aside accordingly. The appeal is allowed with cost. Counsel's fee quantified at Rs. 5,000/-.
Tamilselvan vs State Rep. By Inspector Of ...

4. On appeal before the High Court, accused nos.2 to 6 were acquitted but the conviction of accused no.1, the appellant before us, under Section 302 etc. was upheld. Aggrieved, the accused no.1 has filed this appeal before us.

17. On the facts of the case we are of the opinion that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The appeal is, therefore, allowed. The conviction of the appellant under Section 302 and other provisions of IPC is set aside. The appellant shall be set at liberty forthwith unless required in some other criminal case.

18. Before parting with the case we would like to state that learned counsels for both the parties argued the case before us with great ability and deep knowledge of criminal law.

August 5, 2008
Commissioner Of Central ... vs M/S. Mysore Kirloskar Ltd.,Karnataka

2. The respondent, a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 was manufacturing machine tools, their accessories, high grade castings, pollution control equipments and other incidental and ancillary equipments. It owned and operated a main machine manufacturing factory at Harihar. It used to accept orders to manufacture engineering machines as per the drawings, patterns, jigs, fixtures and tools etc. developed by it. The respondent entered into such an agreement dated May 10, 1991 with ITC for manufacturing the machines. The agreement stipulated that the machines would be manufactured as per the specifications, prototype drawings and patterns prepared by it and approved by ITC. As per the agreement, the price of the machines was to be stipulated by ITC in orders to be placed upon the respondent company. For the agreement in question, the respondent was paid a sum of 3 Rs.43 lakhs. The said sum was accounted as other income in the accounts and balance sheet of the respondent.

4. Feeling aggrieved, the respondent filed an Appeal No. E/744/95 before the Customs Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench at Bangalore (`'the Tribunal'' for short). The Tribunal allowed the appeal by Judgment dated January 25, 2002 giving rise to the instant appeal.

10. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal fails and is dismissed. There shall be no orders as to costs.
State Of Maharashtra & Ors vs Sanjay K. Nimje

Respondent was appointed in the services of the Government of Maharashtra on 29.06.1995. Respondent claimed to be belonging to Halba community, a scheduled tribe. The caste certificate procured by the respondent from the competent officer having been doubted, the matter was referred to the Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur on 27.08.1999 for verification. The respondent was found to be belonging to 'Koshti' caste which comes within the category of 'special backward class' and not within the scheduled tribe category.

In view of the finding of fact that the respondent herein was not a member of the scheduled tribe but was a 'Koshti', his caste certificate was invalidated by an order dated 24.06.2004.

For the reasons aforementioned, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained, which is set aside accordingly. The appeal is allowed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, however, we make no order as to costs.
C.C.E.,Visakhapatnam vs M/S.Mehta & Co

4. M/s. Mehta & Company, Mumbai (the "assessee") are engaged in the business of interior decoration. The assessee provides composite services including woodwork, furniture items etc. They entered into contracts with customers for doing these works as per their requirement and also carry out these works at their customer's premises.

6. It was found that the assessee along with M/s Chandrasekhar Architects Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai entered into an agreement with M/s. Adyar Gate Hotel Ltd., Chennai (now M/s Welcome Group) on 30.08.1995 for carrying out the renovation of the existing structure in their hotel at Nowroji Road, Maharanipeta, Visakhapatnam. The scope of this agreement was further modified by another agreement dated 18.10.1995. As seen by the final bills dated 31.03.1997, raised by the assessee on Hotel 5 Grand Bay, it was observed that the assessee, inter alia, manufactured and cleared furniture, falling under chapter sub-

10. The respondent - M/s. Mehta & Co. and M/s. Grand Bay Hotel submitted their respective replies.

11. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent filed an appeal before the CESTAT, Bangalore, which allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to the concerned adjudicating authority to examine the matter afresh and to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law by providing an effective hearing to the parties. Thereupon, the Commissioner, Central Excise & Customs, Visakhapatnam vide order dated 22.10.2003 confirmed the demand of Rs. 14,94,656/- with penalty of Rs. 7,47,328/- with interest as per Section 11 AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short "the Act") and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/- under Rule 173Q. Aggrieved thereby the respondent filed an appeal before the Tribunal and vide order dt.

28.7.2008 the Tribunal allowed the appeal and set aside the order 10 of the Commissioner, Central Excise & Customs, Visakhapatnam under the impugned judgment and order as against which the present appeal was filed.

So far as the issue with regard to limitation is concerned, since that goes to the root of the demand made, it is appropriate to deal with the same before we go into the second issue.

29. Accordingly, we allow this appeal and set aside the order passed by the Tribunal and restore the order passed by the Commissioner. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

.........................................., J (DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA) 22 ...........................................,J (ANIL R. DAVE) NEW DELHI;

FEBRUARY 10, 2011.
Raju @ Sheikha Mohamed Sharif vs State Of Maharashtra & Anr

3. The appellant gave a cheque dated November 5, 2003 for Rs.4,00,000/- to the complainant-respondent in repayment of a loan of the same amount earlier taken by him. The cheque on presentation before the bank was returned with the endorsement, "account closed." The respondent gave a notice to the appellant asking for payment of the cheque amount but the appellant did not make the payment. Hence, the respondent filed a complaint against the appellant under section 138 of the Act, giving rise to case bearing CC No.245/SS/2004. In the complaint case, the Special Metropolitan Magistrate and Judge of the Small Causes Court found and held that the complainant was able to establish the appellant's guilt and by judgment and order dated October 6, 2005, convicted him under section 138 of the Act and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for six months. The court also directed the appellant to pay compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- under section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and in default of payment of compensation, to undergo imprisonment for a period of one month. The court further directed that on realization of the amount of compensation, Rs.4,00,000/- would be paid to the complainant and the remaining amount 3 would be credited to the State for the "loss and expenses incurred by both the parties".

4. Against the judgment of the trial court, the appellant preferred appeal (Crl. A. No.698 of 2005). The appeal was dismissed without any modification in conviction or sentence by judgment and order dated June 29, 2007. The appellant, then, moved the High Court in Criminal Revision Application No.317 of 2007. The High Court by its judgment and order dated December 9, 2009 sustained the appellant's conviction. It, however, noted that during the pendency of the criminal revision, the appellant had deposited Rs.4,00,000/- in court which was withdrawn by the complainant by the permission of the court. The court further observed that in the facts of the case there was no specific loss caused to the State and, therefore, there was no justification for payment of the large sum of Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation to the State. It, accordingly, reduced the amount of compensation from Rs.8,00,000/- to Rs.4,00,000/-.

6. In the overall facts and circumstances of the case, we are satisfied that the ends of justice would be satisfied by reducing the substantive sentence of the appellant to the period already undergone by him. This would, however, be subject to the condition of payment of Rs.1,00,000/- as additional amount of compensation to the complainant.

7. We, accordingly, direct that the appellant's sentence of imprisonment be reduced to the period already undergone by him provided he deposits a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- in the trial court within 8 weeks from today failing which, he would be taken in custody to serve out the remaining period of 5 sentence given to him by the High Court. If the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- is deposited as directed the entire amount would be paid to the complainant.

8. The appeal is dismissed subject to the modification in sentence.
Puran & Ors vs Gram Panchayat, Faridabad

2. The appellants filed the said suit alleging that a century prior to the filing of the suit, the suit land had been entrusted by the defendant/owners of the land, to their (Appellants') forefathers for cultivation on the understanding that they and their successors would not be evicted therefrom; that as per the local custom, such tenants became full fledged owners by acquiring occupancy rights under Sections 5 and 8 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 (for short 'the Tenancy Act') read with Section 3 of the Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act, 1953 (for short 'the Proprietary Rights Act'). The appellants contended that though the name of respondent Gram Panchayat was entered as the owner of the suit land in the revenue records, the respondent had no right, title or interest therein.

5. The trial court decreed the suit by judgment dated 16.1.2002, on the basis of the oral evidence of the appellants that they and their predecessors were cultivating the suit land for several decades and the revenue documents, namely, Jamabandi for the years 1966-67, 1971-72, 1976-77, 1986-87, 1991-92 (Ex. P-1 to P-3, P-5 and P-6) and the Khasra Girdawaries (Ex. P-7, P-9, P-11 and P-12) which showed the Gram Panchayat as the owner and Sarjeet (father of appellant Nos.1 to 3) and Jivan Lal (father of appellant Nos.4 and 5) were the Gair Marusian. The trial court held that the appellants had proved that they were in possession of the suit land for a period of more than 30 years and had acquired occupancy rights under Section 5 of the Tenancy Act read with Section 3 of the Proprietary Rights Act, and consequently, they were entitled to the declaration prayed for.

12. The suit is based on title. Title is not made out. As a consequence, the dismissal of the suit by the first appellate court, affirmed by the decision of the High Court in Second Appeal, cannot be said to suffer from any infirmity. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
M/S.Sayeed Ahmed & Co vs State Of U.P. & Ors

2. The respondents entrusted a construction work to appellant under an agreement dated 30.3.1990. The work was completed by the appellant on 31.3.1996. Disputes arose between the parties by reason by rejection of claims of appellant and they were referred to Arbitration on 13.3.1997. Before the Arbitrator, the appellant made 11 claims aggregating to Rs.133.43 lakhs. The 2 Arbitrator made an award dated 31.7.2001 directing the respondents to pay to the appellant the following:-

4. At the outset, it is necessary to refer to an erroneous assumption made by the High Court in para 31 of the impugned judgment. It has proceeded on the 3 basis that the sum of Rs.24,18,586/- awarded by the Arbitrator includes the amount due in regard to the final bill as also the amount of security deposit and that interest has been awarded from different dates, on different parts of the said sum of Rs.24,18,586/-. But the award of Rs.24,18,586/- did not include the amount due in regard to the final bill or security deposit . In fact the arbitrator did not quantify the amount due in regard to the final bill or the security deposit, but directed the respondents to calculate and pay the same with interest as indicated in the award. We give below the break up of Rs.24,18,586/- awarded by the arbitrator, to show that the said amount did not include the final bill dues or security deposit :

Re : interest from the date of award

19. In view of the above, we allow this appeal in part and modify the judgment of the High Court as follows :

...........................J. (R V Raveendran) New Delhi; ..........................J. July 9, 2009. (P. Sathasivam)
Benjamin vs State Represented By Inspector Of ...

5. On 26th November, 1994 at about 9.00 p.m. while the deceased and the informant - Kolandaisamy (PW-1) were proceeding towards their house from Nilakkottai Market on their bicycles, somebody had flashed torch light on the deceased. Deceased questioned thereabout. At that time PW-1 also flashed light from his torch towards the opposite direction and saw the appellant. Appellant assaulted the deceased with a wood log which was marked as M.O.1. He saw the accused No. 3 catching hold of the deceased. He was threatened with dire consequences, if he intervened, by the accused No. 2 with a knife. The deceased fell down but still was repeatedly assaulted. PW-1 ran from the spot. He was chased. He allegedly hid himself in a bush.

7. PW-1 went to Nilakottai police station. A First Information Report was lodged at about 1.00 A.M. on 27th November, 1994. The Investigating officer reached the place of occurrence at about 2.00 A.M. He recovered bipod stained earth and a blue shawl. Inquest of the dead body was conducted between 3.00 a.m. and 5.00 a.m. He had also examined some witnesses being PWs. 1, 2, 5 and 6. The body was sent for post-mortem examination. Autopsy was conduced at about 11.15 a.m. on 27th November, 1994. The following anti mortem injuries were found on the person of the deceased:

13. PW-1, although may be a son of the deceased, but it is difficult to disbelieve his statement that he had witnessed the occurrence.

For the reasons abovementioned we do not find any merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed.