L-NLProc/TathyaNyaya-and-FactLegalLlama-NyayaScrape-Datasets huggingface dataset:
Satish Batra vs Sudhir Rawal

4. Consequently, the purchaser, as plaintiff, instituted a suit No. 764/08/06 before the Additional District Judge, Delhi for recovery of Rs.7,00,000/- from the seller-defendant of the earnest money paid by him. Defendant contested the suit stating that, as per the agreement, he is entitled to forfeit the amount of earnest money, if there was a failure on the part of the purchaser-plaintiff in paying the balance amount of Rs.63,00,000/-.

5. The trial Court dismissed the suit holding that the defendant is entitled to retain the amount of earnest money since the plaintiff had failed to pay the balance amount of Rs.63,00,000/- before 5.3.2006.

6. Aggrieved by the judgment of the Additional District Judge, Delhi, plaintiff took up the matter in appeal before the High Court of Delhi by filing R.F.A. No. 137 of 2010. The High Court, placing reliance on the judgment of this Court in Fateh Chand v. Balkishan Dass AIR 1963 SC 1405, took the view that the seller is entitled to forfeit only a nominal amount and not the entire amount of Rs.7,00,000/-. The High Court further held that the seller can forfeit an amount of Rs.50,000/- out of the amount of Rs.7,00,000/- and he is bound to refund the balance amount of Rs.6,50,000/- to the purchaser. To this extent, a decree was also passed in favour of purchaser against the seller. It was also held that the purchaser is also entitled to interest @ 12% per annum from 29.11.2005 till the amount is paid.

and that Rs.1,000/- was paid to him as earnest money at the time of the execution of the agreement. The conditions of the agreement were as follows:

19. We are, therefore, of the view that the seller was justified in forfeiting the amount of Rs.7,00,000/- as per the relevant clause, since the earnest money was primarily a security for the due performance of the agreement and, consequently, the seller is entitled to forfeit the entire deposit. The High Court has, therefore, committed an error in reversing the judgment of the trial court.

20. Consequently, the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside. However, there will be no order as to costs.

……………………………………….…J (K. S. RADHAKRISHNAN) ………………………………………..J. (DIPAK MISRA) New Delhi, October 18, 2012
State Of U.P. & Anr vs Ram Ahdar

The respondent herein was appointed on ad hoc basis on the post of Stenographer for a period of three months. The time was extended twice and ultimately, the respondent also appeared in the test but failed. The respondent preferred writ petition before the learned Single Judge. The same was disposed by the learned Single Judge allowing the respondent to continue till the regularly selected Stenographer joins the post. The same was confirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court.

While issuing notice on 15.10.2001 this Court stayed both the orders of the Division Bench and the learned Single Judge. In view of the interim order, the respondent is no more in service today. Even otherwise an ad hoc appointee appointed for a period of three months as Stenographer, whose term is further extended, should not be allowed to continue in the public interest when he failed in the test.

On this sole ground we set aside both the orders of the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court. This appeal is allowed. No costs. Before parting with this case we would like to mention that very often selection and appointments are made on posts requiring special skills like that of a stenographer. On such posts the only criterion should be merit. However, very often such appointments are not made on merit but on some recommendations, and such appointees are very often incompetent.

If an incompetent stenographer is appointed for the Court the result will be that the correct order passed by the Judge will not be recorded, and this will create many problems. Much of the time of the Judge will be spent on making corrections. Hence great care must be taken by the selection committee for selecting persons to be appointed on posts requiring special skills like that of a stenographer purely on merit disregarding any recommendation made by anyone, howsoever high.
Commnr. Central Excise & Customs, ... vs M/S. I.T.C. Ltd. & Ors

M/s. ITC Ltd., Respondent No. 1 herein manufactures cigarettes. It gets the work done also by way of job work through various factories. These factories inter alia belonged to M/s. Master Tobacco Company situated at 36/40, Mahalaxmi Birdege Arcade, Mahalaxmi Road, Mumbai and M/s. Crown Tobacco Co. situated at 9, St. John Baptist Road, Bandara, Mumbai. A provisional price list was issued by the Department for the period 1.3.1973 to 28.2.1983.

Yet again a show cause notice during pendency of the said appeal was issued on 31.3.1998, , purported to be in terms of order dated 16.12.1997 whereby Respondent No. 1 was asked to make payment of the differential duty amounting to Rs. 1,38,00,035.76. An appeal was preferred against the said second show cause notice as also the demand notice dated 31.3.1998 before the Commissioner (Appeals) which was registered as 571/M-I/98. On an application filed therein for waiver of the requirements of pre-deposit of duty demanded and stay of operation of the said notice of demand during pendency of the appeal, by an order dated 29.12.1998, the Commissioner (Appeals) directed Respondent to deposit an amount of 50% of the disputed duty demanded, as a condition precedent for entertaining the appeals within a period of 15 days therefor. Against the said order, a writ petition was filed before the High Court of Bombay which was allowed by an order dated 22.1.1999 directing the Commissioner (Appeals) to dispose of the stay application afresh by a speaking order within six weeks.

Against the said order also Respondent preferred an appeal before the Tribunal bearing No. E/3234/99 which was dismissed as withdrawn on 15.11.2000. Respondent No. 1 and M/s. Master Tobacco Co. thereafter filed appeals for setting aside :

The Commissioner (Appeals) by a common order dated 26.2.1999 disposed of both the appeals and set aside the order of Assistant Commissioner and the Superintendent upon remitting the matter back to the Commissioner.

For the reasons aforementioned, we do not find any merit in this appeal which is dismissed accordingly. No costs.
Kunwarpal @ Surajpal & Ors vs State Of Uttarkhand & Anr

Shorn of unnecessary details the case of the prosecution is as follows:

There are no merits in the appeal. The same is dismissed.

December 9, 2014.

Date : 09/12/2014 This appeal was called on for JUDGMENT today.

For Appellant(s) Mr. Prafulla K. Behera, Adv.

Mr. S. S. Nehra,Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Rajiv Ranjan Dwivedi,Adv.

Mr. Mukesh Verma, Adv.

Mr. Jatinder Kumar Bhatia,Adv.

Mr. Rajiv Nanda,Adv.

Hon'ble Mr. Justice C. Nagappan pronounced the judgment of the Bench comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.Gopala Gowda and His Lordship.

The appeal is dismissed in terms of the signed order.

(Signed Reportable judgment is placed on the file)
Girish Raghunath Mehta vs Inspector Of Customs & Anr

2. Case of the prosecution is that the Inspector of Customs, NCCP Customs, Mumbai received intelligence information on 26th February, 2004 that the appellant was selling crushed opium poppy straw without any bills on cash basis from his premises at 6, Pravin Chambers, Keshvji Naik Road, Mumbai. Co-accused- Karim Patel was to purchase 30 kgs. of poppy straw. A raid was organized and Karim Patel was apprehended with 30 Kgs. of poppy straw. The raid was conducted by PW1- Bhaskar Shetty, Inspector of Customs, along with others including PW5- Canute Menezes. The said accused stated that he had purchased the poppy straw without any bill on cash payment of Rs.5400/-. On search of the premises belonging to the appellant, some documents were recovered. Appellant was found in the shop and stated that he was proprietor and a lady present there was the manager of the firm. Co-accused- Karim Patel, who was also brought by the raiding party with it, opened the bag which had colored powder in a polythene bag. A small quantity was tested on the Field Testing Kit and result was positive for the presence of opium. The powder was weighed and found to be 30 Kgs. Three samples of 24 grams each were collected and sealed. Remaining powder was sealed and kept in the same bag. The label with signatures of panchas and the investigating officer PW1- Bhaskar Shetty was affixed on the bag. Co-accused- Karim Patel identified the appellant as the person who had sold the powder to him without bill on cash payment. It is not relevant to mention about the rest of stock of opium kept in the shop and thereafter recovery of cash amount from the house of the appellant as conviction of the appellant has been upheld only for the charge mentioned earlier. Co-accused- Karim Patel also stated that he had purchased poppy straw powder on several occasions from the appellant and sold the same.

3. Statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 67 of the Act on 27th February, 2004 to the effect that he had sold 30 Kgs. powder to A-2 without receipt and without medical prescription. A-2 did not have valid permit. After completion of investigation, both the accused were sent up for trial.

4. The prosecution examined 11 witnesses which included investigating officer who effected recovery of the contraband, Superintendent of Customs who received information, Assistant Chemical Examiner, the landlord of the premises in possession of the appellant as a licensee/ tenant and the PSI of the State Excise.

12. The appeals are dismissed.

september 07, 2016.

Date : 07/09/2016 These appeals were called on for pronouncement of JUDGMENT today.

For Appellant(s) Mr. Purushottam Sharma Tripathi,Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar,Adv.

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel pronounced the judgment of the Bench comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice C. Nagappan and His Lordship.

The appeals are dismissed in terms of the Signed Reportable Judgment. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.

(Signed Reportable judgment is placed on the file) | | | |
Gunjan Sharma vs Ashutosh Sharma & Anr

The respondent-husband has filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act and the same is pending before the Family Court at Haridwar, Uttaranchal. The petitioner-wife is staying with her parents at Lucknow and will be unable to defend her case at Haridwar.

Having regard to these facts, we direct that the Petition No.01/2005 titled Asutosh Sharma vs. Smt. Gunjan Sharma and another pending before the Family Court of Judicature Haridwar, Uttaranchal be transferred to the Family Court, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh. All the records be transmitted to the Family Court, Lucknow. The transfer petition is allowed accordingly.
Vilas Pandurang Pawar & Anr vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors

2) In the complaint filed by Savita Madhav Akhade – Respondent No.3 herein, it has been alleged that she has been residing with her family members at Khandeshwari, Taluq Karjat, Ahmednagar, Maharashtra and earning their livelihood from agricultural work. It is further alleged that the complainant is having an agricultural land adjacent to the agricultural land of one Balu Bhanudas Pawar and Arun Bhanudas Pawar. On 15.06.2012, the complainant allowed the rain water, which was accumulated, to flow into the field of Balu Bhanudas Pawar. When the complainant and her husband was standing on S.T. stand for going to Karjat, at that time, Balu Bhanudas Pawar came there and abused them on caste on account of the rain water flowing from the agricultural land of the complainant to his land. The complainant has also alleged that after their return to home, the petitioner along with other co-accused persons gathered at their house and they again abused them on their caste and assaulted the complainant and her family members by using sticks, stones, fighters etc. Thereafter, on the same day, an FIR was registered being No. 139/2012 at Karjat P.S., Ahmednagar, Maharashtra.

“COMPLAINT I. Sau. Savita Madhav Akhade, Age-45 years, Occu. Household, R/o Takali-Khandeshwari. Tq. Karjat, (Caste-Hindu Mahar) I am giving in writing the complaint in the Police Station that, I am residing on the above place with hushand – Madhav, my sons Ramesh, Umesh jointly. My husband is in service in the Beed district. Near my house, Dadasaheb Paraji Akhade, Sadashiv Paraji Akhade and Deelip Paraji Akhade are residing with their families and doing the agricultural work. There is my agricultural land in Khandeshwari area. Near my agricultural land, there is agricultural land of Balu Bhanudas Pawar and Arun Bhanudas Pawar and they are cultivating their lands. On 15.06.2012, we allowed the rain water to flow the lower side and that flow is running from previously.

11) In view of the specific statutory bar provided under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act, the above decisions relied on by the petitioners cannot be taken as a precedent and as discussed above, it depends upon the nature of the averments made in the complaint.

12) In view of the above discussion and in the light of the specific averments in the complaint made by the complainant-respondent No.3 herein, we are of the view that Section 18 of the SC/ST Act is applicable to the case on hand and in view of the same, the petitioners are not entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code. Accordingly, the special leave petition is dismissed. However, it is made clear that the present conclusion is confined only to the disposal of this petition and the trial Court is free to decide the case on merits.

SEPTEMBER 10, 2012.
Sultan Singh vs State Of Haryana

2. The appellant was married to the deceased Lavjeet Kaur on 27th February, 1990. On 17th June, 1994, PW 4- Gurmeet Singh lodged First Information Report to the effect that Lavjeet Kaur was burnt to death by the appellant and 1 Page 1 his mother. It was further stated that she was harassed for dowry soon before her death. Apart from other demands of dowry, it was stated that 5-6 days before the death, the appellant visited the parental house of the deceased and made a demand of Rs.30,000/- for purchase of land. Since the said demand was not met, he left the house under protest. On the fateful day, when he (PW-4) visited the house of the appellant he found that the appellant’s mother poured oil from a ‘can’ on the deceased and the appellant ignited the fire. He came to his parents and thereafter he went to the Civil Hospital where he learnt that the accused was referred to the PGI Chandigarh but she died on the way.

3. On the basis of this First Information Report, the investigation was conducted by PW 6-ASI, Madan Pal Singh and after investigation, the appellant and his mother (who has been acquitted by the High Court) were sent up for trial.

4. The prosecution examined PW 4-Gurmeet Singh, brother of the deceased, PW 5-Ujjagar Singh, father of the deceased, apart from evidence of Investigating Officer and the Medical Officer and other evidence.

Page 17

There is no tangible circumstance to rebut the presumption.

17. For the above reasons, we do not find any merit in this appeal. The appeal is dismissed. The appellant who is on bail is directed to surrender to custody to undergo the remaining sentence.

Date : 26/09/2014 This appeal was called on for JUDGMENT today.

For Appellant(s) Mr. D.P. Singh, Adv.

Mr. Sanjay Jain,Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Manjit Singh, AAG Mrs. Nupur Choudhary, Adv.

Mrs. Vivekta Singh, Adv.

Mr. Kamal Mohan Gupta,Adv.

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel pronounced the judgment of the Bench comprising His Lordship and Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.Gopala Gowda.

The appeal is dismissed in terms of the signed order.

(Signed Reportable judgment is placed on the file) 1 Page 19
State Of Punjab vs Navraj Singh

3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

"11. The legal position, therefore, is this:

13. The above policy can be acknowledged as necessary for the efficacy and proper functioning of public offices. If so, the legal position can be laid down that when conviction is on a corruption charge against a public servant the appellate court or the revisional court should not suspend the order of conviction during the pendency of the appeal even if the sentence of imprisonment is suspended. It would be a sublime public policy that the convicted public servant is kept under disability of the conviction in spite of keeping the sentence of imprisonment in abeyance till the disposal of the appeal or revision."

13. Above being the position the order of the learned Single Judge, directing the suspension/stay of the conviction as well as the order refusing to recall the said order cannot stand and are set aside.

14. Appeal is allowed.
Bhagat Singh & Ors vs Union Of India & Anr

1. Appellants were owners of the lands situate in village Ghewra. The said lands were acquired for a public purpose, namely construction of L.P.G. Bottling Plant. Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short `the Act') was issued on 18th March, 1985 in terms whereof, compensation @ Rs.14,000/- ; Rs.12,000/- and Rs.10,000/- per bigha was offered categorizing the acquired lands in three categories viz. `A', `B' and `C'.

3. Being dissatisfied with the said judgment the appellants filed Appeals before the High Court claiming compensation at the rate of Rs.40,000/- per bigha. However, a Division Bench of the High Court, having regard to its earlier decision rendered in Ranjit Singh vs. Union of India reported in 48(1992) DLT 138, where the lands were acquired for the same purpose and under the same Notification, determined the market value at Rs.26,.775/- ; Rs.24,775/- and Rs.22,775/- per bigha for categories `A', `B' and `C' respectively.

4. The contention raised before us is that the High Court committed a serious error in passing the impugned judgment in so far as it three sale 2 deeds which were marked as Exts. A-5 to A-7 had not been taken into consideration. The details of the said sale deeds are as under :-

6. A Special Leave Petition being No.3211 of 1993 was filed by Ranjit Singh against the said order which stood dismissed in limine on 19th April, 1993.

13. For the reasons aforesaid these appeals fail and are dismissed. No costs.

.....J. [ Cyriac Joseph ] New Delhi August 4, 2009 11
Usha Devi vs Rijwan Ahamd & Ors

3 The material facts are brief and simple. In the year 2002, the appellant filed a suit, inter alia, seeking permanent injunction restraining the respondents-defendants from interfering with her rights over the suit property and further directing them not to build or demolish the building already existing on the suit land. In the Schedule to the plaint, the description of the suit premises was given as follows :

10 In view of the decision in Sajjan Kumar, we are of the view that this appeal too deserves to be allowed. We may clarify here that in this order we do not venture to make any pronouncement on the larger issue as to the stage that would mark the commencement of trial of a suit but we simply find that the appeal in hand is closer on facts to the decision in Sajjan Kumar and following that decision the prayer for amendment in the present appeal should also be allowed. 11 As to the submission made on behalf of the respondents that the amendment will render the suit non-maintainable because it would not only materially change the suit property but also change the cause of action it has only to be pointed out that in order to allow the prayer for amendment the merit of the amendment is hardly a relevant consideration and it will be open to the defendants-respondents to raise their objection in regard to the amended plaint by making any corresponding amendments in their written statement.

13 This appeal is accordingly allowed. The orders of the trial court and High Court are set aside and it is directed that the appellant may be allowed to make the proposed amendment in the plaint subject to payment of Rs.10,000/- as cost to the respondents-defendants. The amendment will be allowed in case the amount of cost is paid within two months from today.
Ramakanth V vs Purnima

4. In terms of the settlement, the appellant has 1 paid an amount of Rs.40,00,000/- (Rupees Forty Lakhs only) to the respondent, which has been duly acknowledged by the respondent. For the remaining sum of Rs.48,35,000/-, three separate demand drafts are being handed over today to the respondent which have been duly acknowledged by her, in full and final settlement of the amount due to her from the appellant.

7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that in the interest of justice and fitness of things, ICICI Bank should settle the whole outstanding dues for an amount of Rs.15,00,000/-. It is ordered accordingly.

8. The respondent shall pay an amount of Rs.9,00,000/- within a week from today to ICICI Bank, Gachaibouwli, Hyderabad. The appellant shall pay the remaining sum of Rs.6,00,000/- within eight weeks from today. However, for the said sum of Rs.6,00,000/-, the appellant will give post dated cheque(s) to ICICI Bank drawn in the name of ICICI Bank followed by the loan account number.

9. Since the disputes are thus settled, we direct ICICI Bank to show loan status of both the parties as ‘settled as paid in full’ so that the parties may not have any difficulty for raising loans in future, if required. As soon as the loan is closed by realizing the amount of Rs.15,00,000/-, the Bank is directed to issue ‘No Dues Certificate’ and ‘No Objection 3 Certificate’ to the respondent and original documents will also be returned to the respondent. The appellant will also execute the Relinquishment Deed, as stipulated in the settlement, and the necessary expenditure in that regard will be borne by him.

12. Having regard to the settlement of the disputes between the parties, we are of the view that it is only in the interest of justice and for securing ends of justice that the criminal cases are also put an end to. Accordingly, the following case is quashed: 4

Sec.420,406,468,471 r/w 34 IPC Nampally Police Station: S.R. Nagar, FIR No.907/2011 in which Chargesheet filed CC No.1292/2017

13. In view of the settlement, as above, we make it clear that there shall be no further claims against each other. We also make it clear that the parties shall not institute any civil or criminal proceedings against each other in respect of the disputes referred to in the settlement, which has become a part of this judgment, without express permission from this Court.

14. Since the case pertaining to the release of the Passport of the appellant has been disposed of, the appellant stands discharged from the Bank Guarantee executed for release of the Passport.

16. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.

17. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.

18. There shall be no orders as to costs.

MARCH 19, 2018.