L-NLProc/TathyaNyaya-and-FactLegalLlama-NyayaScrape-Datasets huggingface dataset:
Amrutlal Liladharbhai Kotak & Ors vs State Of Gujarat

2. The case of the Prosecution is that the marriage between Truptiben (the deceased) and the appellant No.3 herein took place on 01.05.1996. Truptiben was the daughter of one Kantilal Dhanjibhai Karia of District Rajkot in Gujarat. After the marriage, Truptiben was residing in a joint family with her in-laws appellant Nos.1 and 2 and her husband appellant No.3 at Morbi, Gujarat. Out of the said wedlock, a girl named Gopi was born.

4. In the meantime, Appellant No.1 had informed about the said incident to Morbi City Police Station. The P.S.O, who was on duty at the relevant time, made the relevant entry in the Station Register and directed the ASI to investigate the matter. The ASI went to the scene of the offence and carried out preliminary investigation. He recorded the statement of Appellant No.1 and thereafter, sent a yaadi to the P.S.O to register the incident as an accidental death, which came to be registered as A.D. No.16/2000. Thereafter, investigation into the said incident was taken over by Police Inspector Mr. Jaynarayan Rameshwar Srivastav. The Investigating Officer informed Kantilal Dhanjibhai Karia, the father of the deceased, of the said incident and in return he asked the Investigating Officer not to disturb the position of the dead body of his daughter till he arrives at Morbi.

5. The said Kantilal Dhanjibhai Karia, the father of the deceased arrived at 1500 Hrs on the same day. He felt something fishy behind the death of her daughter Truptiben, as the appellants had demanded dowry several times in the past, which was further strengthened by the fact that none of the appellants were present in the house at the relevant point of time.

7. After the registration of the complaint against the appellants, an arrest warrant was issued by the concerned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Morbi on report filed by the Investigating Officer under Section 70 Cr.P.C, but the appellants were untraceable. They were absconding for a period of thirty six days and ultimately on 29.04.2000 at around 2130 Hrs., the appellants surrendered themselves at the Morbi City Police Station.

18. We, therefore, see no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment passed by the High Court or the Trial Court. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

..J (M.Y. EQBAL) .......................................

..J (PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE) New Delhi;

February 26, 2015.
Antony Cardoza vs State Of Kerala

4. It was alleged by the Prosecution that an extent of 10 cents of land was allotted to the Kerala State Handicapped Persons Welfare Corporation (‘the Corporation’ for short) for construction of a building for its head- office from and out of land wherein the quarters of Juvenile Home Superintendent are located. There was a jack tree, a mango tree and few coconut trees in this piece of 10 cents of land. Said jack tree was cut and timber thereof was lying on the plot. It was alleged that the accused in conspiracy got the timber removed in a mini lorry from Thiruvananthapuram and the timber was transported to the house of the present appellant at Alappuzah. It was the case of the prosecution that the timber was sawn and transported to the house of the appellant under the instructions of Shri Vasudevan Nair. Reliance was placed on Ext.P1 being photocopy of the letter written by the appellant in his own hand on his letterhead, bearing his signature and Ext.P6 being a letter written in the hand of said Shri Vasudevan Nair on the letterhead of the Corporation. ). We have been informed that the distance between these two places is about 140 KMs. In defence no explanation was offered for the presence of sawn timber in the house of the appellant nor did he offer any explanation as regards Ext.P1 and P6.

7. The appellant, being aggrieved, filed Special Leave Petition challenging the decision of the High Court. Alongwith the application for release on bail, certificates as regards medical ailments that the appellant suffers from, were also appended. This Court while issuing notice on 30.06.2011 was pleased to order the release of the appellant on bail. The special leave to appeal granted vide order dated 02.01.2013.

10. However, regard being had to the age and medical condition of the appellant, we deem it appropriate to reduce the substantive sentence on each count to simple imprisonment for one year maintaining the order as regards fine and sentence in default. The appellant is directed to surrender within three weeks to undergo the remaining sentence. The appeal thus stands partly allowed in the aforesaid terms.
Mohd.Ayub vs State Of U.P.Tr.Princl.Sec.& Ors

2. The material facts of the case are that information was circulated by the Commandant IInd battalion, PAC Sitapur, 4th Respondent, on 10.04.2003 to all the Branch Incharge/Commandant to make available the nominations of the constable having certain qualifications for the post of Armourer (herein after referred as said post). It was made clear that applications of the interested candidates will be made available to the Head Office by 14.04.2003 and no application sent thereafter will be considered.

3. It was also mentioned therein that a medical certificate from the Chief Medical Officer as per category A was required to be sent along with the application and no application would be accepted without the medical certificate.

5. Aggrieved by this action of the respondent the appellant filed a writ petition No.2657 (SS) of 2003 before the High Court. The Hon'ble High Court vide its order dated 14.05.2003 directed the Respondent No.3-DIG, PAC Barriely section to pass a speaking order on the representation filed by the appellant. The substance of the said order is that since the appellant submitted his application with the educational qualifications on 14.04.2003 but submitted the medical certificate on 15.04.2003, the same could not be considered for the post of Armourer for non-production of medical certificate. It was stated in the impugned order of Respondent No. 2 dated 02.07.2003, the appellant is himself responsible for the delay in submission and as such his application is liable to be dismissed.

6. Challenging the said order dated 02.07.2003, the appellant filed another writ petition no. 5554 (S/S) of 2003. The said writ petition was also rejected on the same grounds on which the representation of the appellant was dismissed. The Appellate Bench of the High Court also took the same view and dismissed the appeal by affirming the decision taken by the learned Single Judge.

17. The application filed by the appellant on the post of Constable Amorer Course is valid and should be considered as valid and the respondents are directed to take steps on the same in accordance with law and within a period of six weeks from the date of service of this order upon them.

18. The appeal is thus allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Kuljit Kaur vs Gurmit Singh Bhullar

Heard the petitioner's counsel. Even though the respondent was served with a notice, but he has not chosen to appear. The respondent herein has filed a petition for divorce before the District Court, Delhi and we are told that the petitioner-wife is now staying with her parents at Nawanshahr, Punjab and she seeks transfer of the case filed by the respondent to the Court at Nawanshahr, Punjab. Accordingly, we order for transfer of H.M.A.No.253 of 2008 pending in the Court of District Judge, Delhi to the Court of District Judge at Nawanshahr, Punjab.

The District Judge, Delhi will transfer all the records to the District Court at Nawanshahr.

The transfer petition is allowed accordingly.

...............CJI.

13TH AUGUST, 2009.
Fazar Ali & Ors vs State Of Assam

2. A written complaint was submitted by Afazuddin son of Samsuddin and brother of Abdul Rahman, which had the thumb impression of Afazuddin whereunder names of five accused Sekendar Ali, Abu Taher, Abdul Sattar, Fazar Ali and Akkash Ali were mentioned with seven other accused. Complaint was initially registered under Section 147, 148, 149 and 326 IPC in which Section 302 IPC was added subsequent to death of Abdul Rahman.

21. There are two reasons for not accepting the above arguments; firstly, before the Police also the role of accused was mentioned by eye-witnesses. In their statements under Section 161 Cr.P C and before the Court also eye- witnesses proved the role of the accused and presence of the accused. Hence, the eye-witness account of witnesses proves the presence of the accused. They have been rightly convicted under Section 302 read with 49 IPC.

26. We do not find any merit in the appeal. The appeal stands dismissed.

.................J [A. K. SIKRI] ..................J [ASHOK BHUSHAN] New Delhi April 21, 2017.
Pranav Verma vs The Registrar General Of The High Court ...

5. The Main Exam consisted of five papers – Civil Law – I, Civil Law – II, Criminal Law, English and Hindi. The first four papers were for 200 marks and Hindi was for 100 marks. In order to qualify for viva-voce examination, a candidate is required to secure a minimum of 33% marks in each of the written exam and an aggregate of minimum 50% marks in all five papers [45% for reserved category]. It is pertinent to note that viva-voce is also a part of the Main Exam and treated as the sixth paper of 200 marks. No minimum marks are prescribed for viva-voce as per the Rules. The candidates equivalent to three times of the advertised posts, who qualify in the written Exam are called strictly in order of merit to appear for the viva-voce. Marks obtained in the five papers are consolidated with the marks obtained in Viva Voce and accordingly a final merit list is prepared.

6. Preliminary Examination pursuant to the re-notified vacancies was held on 22.12.2018 and its result was declared on 21.01.2019. Main Exam was held from 15.03.2019 to 17.03.2019. Results of the Main Exam were declared on 11.04.2019 wherein only 9 candidates (6 of General Category and 3 of Reserved Categories) were declared qualified and found fit for the Viva Voce.

Page | 3 Complete details of the number of candidates who appeared/qualified in each stage of the selection process are as follows:– Candidates appeared in Preliminary Examination 14301 Candidates qualified for Main Exam 1282 Candidates appeared in Main Exam 1195 Candidates found fit for Viva Voce 9 (6+3)

Page | 15

(s) of the Chief Justice.

28. For the reasons stated above, we allow these Writ Petitions in part with the following directions:-

29. All pending applications, if any, are disposed of in terms of the aforesaid order.

……………………….. CJI.

(S. A. BOBDE) ………………………… J.

(SURYA KANT) NEW DELHI DATED : 13.12.2019 Page | 24
Union Of India & Ors vs Narinderjit Singh Sindhu

2. The relevant facts emerging from the record of the case are as under:

3. Feeling aggrieved, the respondent filed CWP No. 10037 of 2002 before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh praying, inter alia, to direct the appellants to consider his case for promotion to the rank of Major General in Army Aviation Corps. He also prayed that the appellants be restrained from posting an ex-cadre officer to the Post of Additional Director General Army Aviation, Army 16 1 Head Quarters. The petition filed by the respondent was contested by the appellants. The High Court, by the impugned judgment, has directed the appellants to consider the case of the respondent for promotion to the rank of Major General in Army Aviation Corps, giving rise to the instant appeal.

8. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that a just direction is given to the appellants to consider the case of the respondent for promotion to the post of Major General in Army Aviation Corps and no case is made out for interfering with the same in the instant appeal. The appeal, which lacks merit, therefore, deserves to be dismissed.

9. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal fails and is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

September 29, 2010.
Tamil Nadu Housing Board vs L. Chandrasekaran & Ors

11. The petitioners in the respective writ petitions are directed to make the representation to the State within 15 days by registered post acknowledgement due under Section 48-B of the Act. If no such representation is made within 15 days, it shall be deemed that they had given up their right to seek for reconveyance of the property under Section 48-B of the Act."

5. In furtherance of direction given by the Division Bench of the High Court, L. Chandrasekaran submitted representation dated 17.2.1999 to the Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Department, Chennai with the request that the land may be reconveyed to him in terms of Section 48-B of the Act. The State Government forwarded the representation to the appellant-Board for its comments. The latter sent report mentioning therein that the land was proposed to be utilized for allotment of housing plots to economically weaker section of the people and for construction of multi-storey flats for higher income group. After considering the report, the State Government rejected the representation of Shri L. Chandrasekaran, who was informed about the same by the Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Department, Chennai vide his letter dated 18.3.1999.

Rejoinder affidavit :

20. In the result, the appeals are allowed. The impugned judgment is set aside and the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in the writ petitions filed by the respondents are restored. The parties are left to bear their own costs.
M/S. Magma Leasing & Fin. Ltd. & Anr vs Potluri Madhavilata & Anr

3. MAGMA Leasing Limited Public United Company (for short, `MAGMA') is a financial institution engaged in the business of providing funds for purchase of plant and machinery and other assets by way of hire purchase. Smt. Potluri Madhavilata-respondent no. 1 (hereinafter referred to as `hirer) entered into an agreement of hire purchase with MAGMA for purchase of a motor vehicle (Bolero Camper-AP 16 TV 1263) on January 31, 2005. As per the terms of hire purchase agreement, the hirer was required to pay hire purchase price in 46 installments. It appears that the hirer committed default in payment of few installments and as a result thereof, MAGMA seized the said vehicle from the hirer on August 6, 2005. MEGMA also sent a notice to the hirer intimating her that hire purchase agreement has been terminated. Thereafter some correspondence seems to have ensued between the parties.

4. The hirer then filed a suit against MAGMA in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada seeking recovery of possession of the aforesaid vehicle and for restraining MAGMA from transferring the said vehicle.

5. MAGMA, upon receipt of notice of the aforesaid proceedings, made an application (I.A. No. 490 of 2006) before 2 the trial court under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short , `Act, 1996') read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying therein that the dispute raised in the suit be referred to an arbitrator and the proceedings in the suit be stayed.

6. The hirer contested the aforesaid application on the ground that the hire purchase agreement having been terminated, the arbitration agreement does not survive and the matter need not be referred to the arbitration.

7. The First Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada vide order dated December 4, 2006 dismissed the application made by MAGMA under Section 8 of the Act, 1996.

9. The Division Bench dismissed the revision petition on April 30, 2007 holding that upon termination of the hire purchase agreement, the arbitration agreement does not survive. The present appeal by special leave arises from this order.

(emphasis supplied) Modern laws on arbitration confirm the concept.

25. In the result, appeal must succeed and is allowed. The impugned order dated April 30, 2007 passed by the High Court affirming the order dated December 4, 2006 passed by 1 the First Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada is set aside. I.A.No.490/2006 in O.S.No.19/2006 is restored to the file of the First Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada for passing an appropriate order in the light of the observations made hereinabove. Since the respondent has not chosen to appear, no order as to costs.

........................J (Tarun Chatterjee) ........................J (R. M. Lodha) New Delhi September 18, 2009.
Prakash Chand Daga vs Saveta Sharma

2. The appellant, original owner of a Santro Car sold said vehicle to Ms. Saveta Sharma, first respondent on 11.09.2009. According to the appellant, after receiving due consideration, the possession was transferred to said first respondent. An accident occurred on 09.10.2009 in which one Rakesh Kumar, second respondent, received injuries. In a claim lodged by second respondent, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal assessed the compensation at Rs.12.47 lakhs and directed as under:

recover the same from the registered owner i.e. respondent No.1 of the offending vehicle. Remaining conditions of disbursal of amount shall remain unaltered.”

9. The law is thus well settled and can be summarised:- Civil Appeal No.11369 of 2018

10. This appeal is dismissed. No costs.

December 14, 2018.
Cen.Pub.Information Officer,Sci & Anr vs Subhash Chandra Agarwal

5. The respondent Subhash Chandra Agrawal preferred appeal before the appellate authority of the Supreme Court of India challenging the said order. The appellate authority dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of the CPIO. Thereafter, the respondent preferred a further appeal before the CIC purported it to be under Section 19 of the Act. The CIC having set aside the orders passed by the authorities, directed the CPIO, Supreme Court to furnish the information sought by the respondent. It is that order which is under challenge before us.

16.The above questions involve the interpretation of the Constitution raise great and fundamental issues.

17.For the aforesaid reasons, we direct the Registry to place this matter before Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India for constitution of a Bench of appropriate strength. Let the papers be accordingly placed before Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India.

18.Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 32856 of 2009 Leave granted. Tag with Civil Appeal arising out of S.L.P.(c) No. 32855 of 2009.

19.Civil Appeal No. 2683 of 2010 Tag with Civil Appeal arising out of S.L.P.(c) No. 32855 of 2009.
State Of Uttarkhand & Ors vs Guru Ram Das Educational Trust Sty

4. The controversy in this Appeal, by special leave, is in respect of land admeasuring 1.626 hectares situate in village Chalang, Dehradun out of 6.785 hectares which was transferred by the Bhumidhar to respondent, Guru Ram Das Educational Trust Society in 1992. A notice under Sections 166 and 167 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (for short, '1950 Act') was issued by the Assistant Collector First Class/Sub Divisional Magistrate, Dehradun to the respondent to show cause why the said land should not be entered into the revenue records in the name of the State Government and possession of the same be taken forcibly as the transfer in its favour was void. In response to the notice, the respondent filed its objections and set up diverse grounds. One of the objections raised by the respondent was that there was no prohibition under Section 154 of the 1950 Act on transfer by way of sale to a charitable trust for charitable purpose.

7. Not satisfied with the orders of the Assistant Collector and Commissioner, the respondent challenged these orders in a Writ Petition before the High Court of Uttarakhand. The single Judge of the High Court allowed the Writ Petition principally on the ground that the subject land was being used for non agricultural purpose for more than ten years and declaration under Section 143 of the 1950 Act was not necessary. He further held that the provisions of Section 154 were not applicable and, accordingly, quashed and set aside the orders of the Commissioner and Assistant Collector. It is against this order that the State of Uttaranchal (Now, Uttarakhand) and its functionaries have come up in appeal by special leave.

11. Accordingly, we hold, as it must be held, that a ‘charitable institution’ is not included within the meaning of the expression 'any person' occurring in Section 154 of the 1950 Act and, therefore, the Assistant Collector was not justified in issuing notice to the respondent under Sections 166 and 167 of the 1950 Act.

12. Though we are not in agreement with the reasoning of the High Court fully, but in view of what we have indicated above, no interference is called for in the impugned order.

13. Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs.
Gajraj Yadav vs Rajendra Singh @ Deena & Ors

2. Challenge in these appeals is to the order passed by a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court directing suspension of sentence awarded to the respondents. It was directed that such suspension was to take effect on each one of them by furnishing a bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the 1 trial Court for the appearance before the High Court and on dates of hearing unless otherwise directed. The order was to operate in respect of the respondents who are the appellants in Criminal Appeal Nos.1420 and 1431 of 2007 pending before the Rajasthan High Court. It is to be noted that 51 persons were put on trial and 18 were convicted. Along with the appeals, the respondents filed application for suspension of sentence in terms of Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1873 (in short `Code').

5. As noted above, out of 51 accused persons, 18 persons, including the appellants before the High Court were convicted and two had died during trial. They had prayed for suspension of the sentence which by the impugned order was accepted.

6. The High Court stated that without appreciating the case on merit and demerits of the case, it is allowing the petition. 3

(4) When the appellant is ultimately sentenced to imprisonment for a term or to imprisonment for life, the time during which he is so released shall be excluded in computing the term for which he is so sentenced." 5

14. The High Court noted that except Girdhari other appellants (present respondents) were on bail during trial.

15. The order directing suspension of sentence and grant of bail is clearly unsustainable and is set aside. Learned counsel for the accused-respondents stated that fresh applications shall be moved before the High Court. In case it is done, it goes without saying, that the High Court shall consider the matter in the proper perspective in accordance with law.

16. Appeals are allowed.