L-NLProc/TathyaNyaya-and-FactLegalLlama-NyayaScrape-Datasets huggingface dataset:
Pantangi Balarama Venkata Ganesh vs State Of A.P

2. Subbarama Reddy reached Ongole on 1st December, 1995. He went to a place known as Markapur on the same date to attend a function. He was to attend two more functions in the afternoon in the town of Ongole. PWs. 2 and 3 came to invite him to attend the functions to be held at Islampet in the town of Ongole. While he was in his bed room, PWs. 1 to 3 went inside the bedroom and at the same time PW 13 also went inside the room. Ch. Venkataratnam, gunman, was standing outside the door. While all of them were coming out from the bedroom of Subbarama Reddy, PW 1 found four- five persons having pistols standing there. Pantangi Balarama Venkata Ganesh, A-1 was said to be having a gun in his hand. The assailants fired at Subbarama Reddy and his gunman. PWs. 1 and 2 are also said to have sustained bullet injuries. A-1 was identified as a person wearing pink coloured shirt. The gunman allegedly fired a shot. Pursuant thereto appellant sustained bullet injuries. They escaped in a white Ambassador Car bearing registration No. AAK-7041.

3. One J. Srinivasa Rao, an Armed Police Constable, per chance, came near the place of occurrence and witnessed the assailants escaping in an Ambassador Car. However, the assailants made their escape good.

4. Accused No.1 was arrested on the same day from a cashew garden with a bullet injury in his stomach. He was arrested and sent to hospital for treatment.

5. Subbarama Reddy died at 1600 hours while his gunman Ch. Venkatarantam died at 1800 hours on the same date i.e. 1st December, 1995. Accused No.2 was, however, arrested on 15th December, 1995 from Uppugunduru railway station.

10. A pink colour shirt was seized from the abandoned car. The blood stains on the shirt was found to be matching with the blood group of accused No.1.

16. Aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said judgment of conviction and sentence, an appeal was preferred by the accused before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. Whereas the appeal of accused No.1 was dismissed but that of the accused No.2 was allowed.

38. Dr. G.V. Rao, PW-46, conducted the D.N.A. Test. Indisputably blood stains on a pink colour shirt and other material objects, in view of his report (Ext.86) it stands established that the blood samples of the shirt tallied with that of the appellant.

46. Submission of Mr. Sachar that the report of DNA should not be relied upon, cannot be accepted. What is DNA? It means :-

There cannot be any doubt whatsoever that there is a need of quality control. Precautions are required to be taken to ensure preparation of high- molecular-weight DNA complete digestion of the samples with appropriate enzymes, and perfect transfer and hybridization of the blot to obtain distinct bands with appropriate control. (See Article of Lalji Singh, Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology, Hyderabad in DNA Profiling and its applications)

51. We, therefore, are of the opinion that both the appeals are liable to be dismissed. They are dismissed accordingly.

...................................J. ( S.B. SINHA ) ...................................J. ( CYRIAC JOSEPH ) New Delhi July 23, 2009
Sushil Kumar Singhal vs Pramukh Sachiv,Irrigation ...

2. The appellant retired on 31st December, 2003 as an Assistant Engineer and on the basis of his last salary drawn, his pension had been fixed. At the time of his retirement, his salary was Rs.11,625/- and on the basis of the said salary, his pension had been fixed.

3. After a few years of his retirement, it was found by the respondent- employer that salary of the appellant had been wrongly fixed in 1986 and therefore, his salary had been re-fixed by an order dated 23.03.2005. On the basis of the re-fixed salary a sum of Rs.99,522/- was sought to be recovered and for that purpose a notice had been issued to the appellant on 23.04.2005. In pursuance of the incorrect fixation of his salary in 1986, his salary at the time of his retirement had also been reduced from Rs.11625/- to Rs.10,975/- and therefore, his pension had also been reduced.

4. The aforestated action of the respondent-employer had been challenged by the appellant by filing the aforestated Writ Petition before the High Court. The High Court was pleased to reject the petition as it had come to the conclusion that the pay of the appellant had been wrongly fixed and therefore, the impugned action of the respondent-employer with regard to recovery of the excess salary paid and reduction in the pension was justified.

12. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, we quash and set aside the impugned judgment as well as the order dated 23.03.2005 whereby salary of the appellant was re-fixed and order dated 23.04.2005 whereby recovery of excess amount of Rs.99,522/- was ordered to be recovered from the appellant. The appellant shall be paid pension which had been determined at the time of his retirement, i.e. immediately after 31st December, 2003. The appeal is disposed of as allowed with no order as to costs.
Add. Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Bharat V. Patel

3) Brief facts:­

(a) On   10.09.1998,   the   Respondent,   who   is   the   Chairman and   Managing   Director   of   Procter   and   Gamble   (P&G),   India, filed his income tax return for the Assessment Year 1998­99 and declaring the total income at Rs 40,13,820/­.

In   the   absence   of   any   express   statutory   provision   regarding the applicability of such amendment from retrospective effect, we do not find any force in the argument of the Revenue that such   amendment   came   into   force   retrospectively.   It   is   well established rule of interpretation that taxing provisions shall 16 be construed strictly so that no person who is otherwise not liable to pay tax, be made liable to pay tax.

19) In view of above discussion, we are of the considered view that these instant appeals are devoid of merits and deserve to be dismissed. Accordingly, these are hereby dismissed leaving parties to bear their own cost.

APRIL 24, 2018.
M/S Boc India Ltd vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors

3. The factual matrix involved is not in dispute.

M/s Tata Iron & Steel Company Limited (TISCO) produces steel. For the said purpose, it purchases oxygen gas from M/s B.O.C. India Ltd. (BOC), the producer and supplier, for industrial and medical use. BOC began supply of oxygen gas to TISCO from the year 1993.

9. Concededly, TISCO never applied for amendment or modification of the Registration Certificate. Oxygen gas continued to be allowed to remain in Annexure `B' of the Registration Certificate wherefor sales tax was payable at the rate of three per centum. Indisputably again, till the Assessment Year 2002-2003 for supply of oxygen gas to TISCO, BOC also used to charge sales tax at the rate of three per centum. However, the said purported mistake was sought to be rectified by BOC in terms of the said Notification dated 3.2.1986 charging two per centum sales tax on the supplies of oxygen gas made to TISCO. TISCO issued a declaration in terms of Form IX of the Rules. BOC also deposited tax at the rate of two per cent on the sale of industrial gases to TISCO.

19. If it is to be held that the assessee is a person aggrieved to question the validity of the demand raised on it, it will have the locus standi to maintain a writ petition.

27. For the reasons aforementioned, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained. It is set aside accordingly. The appeals are allowed. The demand made on the appellant is also set aside. The question, as to whether the oxygen gas is a raw material for the manufacture of steel or not may be determined by the Assessing Authority on the basis of the material(s), which may be brought on record by the parties. All contentions raised by the parties on the said question shall remain open. The Assessing Authority is hereby directed to give an opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence in this behalf. All other consequential proceedings may follow on the basis of the determination on the said question.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

MARCH 05, 2009
M.C.D vs Shashnak Steel Industries (P) Ltd

5. We quote hereinbelow some of the relevant recitals and the terms and conditions of the said Deed dated 20.2.1981:

(v) And whereas the Chief Commissioner has approved the sub-lessee and the manufacturing process be carried on or the industry to be run on the said industrial plot by the sub-lessee. Now this indenture witnesseth that, in consideration of the sub- lessee having paid to the lessee 16,093.60 Sixteen thousand and ninety three and paise sixty only towards premium before the execution of these present (the receipt whereof the lessee hereby acknowledges) and of the rent hereinafter reserved and of the covenants on the part of the Sub-lessee hereinafter contained, the lessee doth hereby sub-lease and the lessor doth hereby confirm unto the sub-lessee. .........

18. For the aforestated reasons, we see no infirmity in the impugned judgment of the Delhi High Court. Accordingly, the civil appeal filed by the Corporation is dismissed with no order as to costs.

Facts in Civil Appeal No.1011/2005 and other Civil Appeals

21. For the aforestated reasons we find no infirmity in the impugned judgments of the Delhi High Court and accordingly all the civil appeals filed by the Corporation stand dismissed with no order as to costs.

November 17, 2008.
M/S. Ladli Construction Co. (P) Ltd vs Punjab Police Housing Corpn. Ltd. & Ors

2. The controversy arises in this way. A contract was entered into between the appellant - M/s Ladli Construction Co. (P) Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the Contractor'), and the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, namely, Punjab Police Housing Corporation Limited and Executive Engineer (Civil), Punjab Police Housing Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation') for construction of 240 houses Type II-A at Urban Estate, Ludhiana at an estimated cost of Rs. 273.84 Lakhs. The contract provided in Clause 2 that time was essence of the contract and the time allowed for carrying out work as entered in the tender shall be strictly observed by 2 Contractor. The Contractor could not maintain the time schedule and the progress of the work was not observed. The Contractor was directed to push up the progress of work but that also it failed to do. The Contractor was notified that if it failed to take any action to show requisite progress by 30th of April, 1991, action against it under Clause 3 of the agreement would be taken. Still there was no requisite progress in execution of the work by the Contractor. On May 8, 1991, the Corporation resorted to action under Clause 3 of the contract, rescinded the contract and adopted further course by giving unexecuted work to another contractor. The disputes, thus, having arisen between the parties, the Contractor moved the court of Sub Judge, First Class, Chandigarh, for appointment of the arbitrator in terms of Clause 25A of the contract.

3. On the application made by the Contractor for appointment of the arbitrator, the Sub Judge, on May 13, 1992, ordered that matter in dispute may be referred for arbitration as per Clause 25A of the agreement and, accordingly, as per the agreement and the statement of parties, the Sub Judge ordered the Chief Engineer of the Corporation to act as an arbitrator as provided under Clause 25A of the agreement. Both the parties were permitted to file claim and counter claim before the arbitrator.

4. In pursuance of the order dated May 13, 1992, 3 the Corporation lodged its claim against the Contractor on June 15, 1992. The arbitrator - Chief Engineer of the Corporation - called upon the Contractor to appear before him on June 25, 1992. Thereafter also the arbitrator called upon the Contractor to appear before him. The Contractor, however, did not appear before the arbitrator and instead sent a letter on June 29, 1992 intimating him that his appointment as arbitrator was not acceptable to it; it did not expect any justice and fair play from him and he must refrain from acting as an arbitrator in the case.

9. Against these two concurrent judgments, the Contractor filed civil revision before the High Court which too was dismissed on November 25, 2002. As noted above, it is from this order that the present Appeal, by special leave, has arisen.

32. The view taken by the High Court does not suffer from any infirmity justifying interference by us in our jurisdiction in appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.

33. Civil Appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
Central Bank Of India vs Nrc Ltd

This contempt petition makes a grievance that the respondent-N.R.C. Ltd. has not complied with the order dated 19th August, 2013 passed by this Court while dismissing their SLP (C) No.24874 of 2013, and an action be taken against them for committing contempt of the above order passed by this Court. The said order dismissed the SLP filed by the respondent, challenging their eviction from the premises occupied by them. However, considering the number of employees who were engaged in their registered office situated at that place, they were granted time till the end of December, 2014 to vacate the premises, subject to filing the usual undertaking in the Registry of this Court within four weeks from that date, stating that the petitioner will not create any third party rights, all the mesne profits will be paid in the meanwhile, and will peacefully vacate the premises concerned at the end of December, 2014.

2. That special leave petition was filed to challenge the judgment dated 10th May, 2013 of the High Court of Bombay in Writ Petition No.2898/2011 and L.P.A. No.174 of 2012 under which the order passed by the Estate Officer of the appellant, and confirmed by the City Civil Court was left undisturbed. The order dated 19th August, 2013 required the respondent to file the necessary undertaking, but it was not filed, and the mesne profits as required have also not been paid. It is also pointed out that subsequently one more I.A., being I.A. No.2 of 2014, was taken out by the respondent-N.R.C. Ltd. to be relieved of this undertaking, and that I.A. was not pressed, and the same came to be dismissed by this Court by its order dated 7th October, 2013.

9. This being the position, in our view, the Central Bank will be entitled to take back the possession of the concerned premises with respect to which the order of eviction has been passed, and we permit it to resume the same by taking the help of police if required.

The contempt petition is allowed in the above terms.
U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. & Ors vs M/S Bonds & Beyonds (India) (P) Ltd

3. The State Government of Uttar Pradesh issued a notification under Section 22-B of the Electricity Act, 1910 (hereinafter to be referred to as "the Act of 1910") known as the U.P. Electricity (Regulation of Supply, Distribution, Consumption and Use) Order, 1977 which was published in the Official Gazette. This order was amended on 30-4-1984, known as the U.P. Electricity (Regulation of Supply, Distribution, Consumption and Use) (1st Amendment) Order, 1984 by which clause 9 of the 1977 Order was amended and it was substituted by the following:

4. The amended Order of 1984 was initially applied from 1-5-1984 to 21-5-1984. The State Government again issued another order known as the U.P. Electricity (Regulation of Supply, Distribution, Consumption and Use) (Second Amendment) Order, 1984 on 21-5-1984 and it was made applicable with effect from 1-5-1984. By this, clause III of the First Amendment Order was substituted and the same was made applicable with effect from 1-5-1984 and was to remain in force until withdrawn. It is alleged that the said Order was not withdrawn by the State Government and is still in force. The Corporation in order to check the malpractice by the consumers installed electronic meters which are computerised and can be downloaded for 35 days which will show the details of consumption including any violation of peak hours restriction in the last 35 days. Thereafter, the Board issued a circular on 15-10-1998 to the effect that penalty for peak hours restrictions will be imposed as per the meter reading inspection report. However, it was pointed out by the communication dated 7-4-1999 that for violation of restriction of peak hours on the basis of meter reading inspection report for the first time, one penalty for one month may be imposed on the bill. However, for the second bill and thereafter, the procedure for penalty will remain the same as mentioned in the circular dated 15-10-1998. In this factual matrix, the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court after reading these two circulars dated 15-10-1998 and 7-4-1999 took the view that in view of the order dated 7-4-1999, the consumer cannot be levied with penalty for each alleged contravention but once only on the basis of alleged meter reading report, meaning thereby that each such report will be treated as one contravention. One meter reading inspection report which stores data for 35 days, shall be treated as one contravention irrespective of the fact that in the report a number of contraventions might have been made of peak hour restriction but one meter reading inspection report shall be construed as one contravention. Aggrieved against this order dated 25.5.2001 passed by the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No.4214 of 2001, the appeal has been filed by grant of special leave.

7. The appeal is accordingly allowed with no order as to costs.
State Of Maharashtra vs Hemant Kawadu Chauriwal Etc

2. The facts of the case, as disclosed by the prosecution, are that an FIR was lodged on 21.06.2004 at Ghatanji Police Station after receipt of dying declaration recorded on 20.06.2004, by Naib Tehsildar at Yavatmal General Hospital. In the morning of 20.06.2004, deceased Asha Hemant Chauriwal was brought to Ghatanji Hospital for treatment of burn injuries. She was later shifted to Yavatmal Hospital for further treatment. Her dying declaration was recorded by Naib Tehsildar at around 5:45 PM on the same day, following which the above said FIR was lodged. The deceased died on 22.06.2004 due to septicemia as a result of 88% dermo epidermal infected burn injuries.

9. The second issue which is of paramount consideration is the alleged letters written by the deceased to her father, which were argued to be in her own handwriting. PW3 himself deposed that he only produced a few letters which helped his case. Further, he himself testified that the letters were written by the deceased in her own handwriting as was known to him. The prosecution, however, had a duty to establish the veracity of such an important piece of evidence. The prosecution explained that it was unable to find the handwriting of the deceased by any other means. However, it is not explained as to what steps were taken to investigate the said evidence in the case. Another important fact which is on record is that while recording the dying declaration, Naib Tehsildar deposed that the deceased was illiterate and the dying declaration was read over and explained to her. These two facts are self-contradictory and severely detrimental to the prosecution case which ought to have been explained by the prosecution.

12. In our opinion, the two pivotal evidence i.e. dying declaration and the alleged letters having not been proved, strikes at the very root of the prosecution case. We are, therefore, of the view that the High Court rightly pointed out the lacunae in the shabby investigation of the case. Moreover, the prosecution failed to stand its ground and bring home its case.

13. Thus, in the light of the above discussion, we find no compelling and substantial reasons to interfere with the judgment passed by the High Court. The appeals are, accordingly, dismissed.

…....................................J (Pinaki Chandra Ghose) …...................................J (R.K. Agrawal) New Delhi;

December 16, 2015.
State Of Kerala & Ors vs Sneha Cheriyan & Anr

4. The Management and the teachers, it is generally known, started misusing the above statutory provisions for getting preference for future appointments by effecting appointments by creating vacancies during the academic year. Such unethical and unhealthy practices led to creation of anticipatory vacancies and multiple claimants under Rule 51A causing drain on State exchequer since the State is paying the salary. The Government in order to check such practices issued an order G.O.(P) No.169/04.G.Edn. dated 15.06.2004 stating that the claim for re-appointment under Rule 51A of the KER would be limited to those who had been appointed against regular/ leave vacancies having a duration of not less than one academic year. Further, it was also stated that vacancies having duration of less than one academic year would be filled up on daily wage basis and in order to give effect to that Government order, it was ordered that necessary amendments would be made to sub-rule (3) of Rule 7A, Chapter XIV A of the KER.

(iii) above;

7. This order will take effect from the date of the order only. The approval of appointments given prior to this order shall not be reviewed.”

26. We are, therefore, inclined to allow these appeals and set aside the judgment of the Division Bench with the following directions:

iii) Approval can also be granted to appointments made to the approved vacancies arising and continuing beyond 31st March due to sanctioning of additional divisions.

vi) Teachers who have been appointed in the midst of the academic year and not completed the requisite minimum continuous service before vacation will not be entitled to get vacation salary.

27. Appeals are accordingly allowed and disposed of as above setting aside the judgment of the High Court but there will be no order as to costs.
Bollepanda P. Poonacha & Anr vs K.M. Madapa

4. O.S. No. 54 of 1997 was filed in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division at Virajpet on 19.2.1997. Respondent filed a written statement on 21.3.1997 contending that he had purchased the said properties in terms of an order passed by the Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Kodagu, Madikeri.

14. We, for the reasons stated hereinbefore, are of the opinion that the learned Civil Judge was not correct in allowing the application for amendment of the written statement.

17. For the reasons aforementioned, the impugned judgments cannot be sustained which are set aside accordingly. The appeal is allowed.

18. The defendant, however, would be entitled to file a suit or an application to amend the plaints to such extent, which may be held to be permissible in law. Respondent shall bear the costs of the appellant. Counsel's fee assessed at Rs. 10,000/-.