L-NLProc/TathyaNyaya-and-FactLegalLlama-NyayaScrape-Datasets huggingface dataset:
Sheo Prasad Bhor @ Sri Prasad vs State Of Assam

Brief facts giving rise to these appeals are that on 8.6.1991, Smt. Rani Begum lodged a first information report that her husband, Rehmat Ali went out of the house around 8.00 a.m. for fishing and around 11.00 a.m. she was informed by Mina Begum that her husband had been killed by accused Manik Keot, Brajanath Kurmi and Jaharlal Kurmi and the dead body was packed into a gunny bag and thrown into a river. The police registered a case and during investigation the dead body was recovered from the river and thereafter it was sent for post-mortem examination. On completion of investigation, a case was registered against the accused persons under Sections 147, 302, 201 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, I.P.C.). On completion of trial, learned Sessions Judge recorded conviction under Sections 147, 149, 304 Part II and 201, I.P.C. against the accused persons and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six years and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- each, in default to suffer further imprisonment for two years. The trial court found that it was not necessary to record any separate sentence under Sections 147/149/201, I.P.C. and sentenced the accused persons under Section 304, Part II, I.P.C. only as it was observed that it was sufficient to meet the ends of justice. Aggrieved against this order a joint appeal was filed before the High Court. Learned Single Judge of the High Court confirmed the conviction and sentence of the accused appellants.

It may be mentioned here that during the pendency of appeal, appellant Champalal Bhor and Brajnath Kurmi expired, therefore, the appeal against these two appellants stood abated. In the present appeals we are concerned with the accused- appellants, Manik Keot, Sheo Prasad Bhor and Jaharlal Bhor.
Subhash Chandra Singh vs Dheemant Singh & Anr

2. Challenge in this appeal is to the the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court granting bail to the respondent No.1. The appeal is by the father of the Shobhna (hereinafter referred to as the `deceased') who was married to the respondent No.1. It is stated that the death took place within seven years of the marriage and it was unnatural death. The High Court by a practically non-reasoned order granted bail. It is pointed out by learned counsel for the appellant that no reason has been indicated for directing grant of bail and even the conclusions are contradictory in terms.

9. The Appeal is allowed.
Raj Kumar Khurana vs State Of (Nct Of Delhi) & Anr

Appellant kept two blank cheques in his office along with some stamp papers. They were said to have been stolen from his office. Information as regards missing of the said cheques was also given to the bank. He lodged a First Information Report with regard thereto, stating:

The blank cheques were allegedly filled up on 24.06.2001. They were presented before the bank but the same were returned dishonoured with the remarks "said cheque reported lost by the drawer".

5. Appellant has moreover filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.31,40,131.43 in the Court of Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Darwha, Madhya Pradesh against the respondent No. 2 and his brother. Several other 5 applications were filed by the appellant before the said court to which we need not advert to.

Before a proceeding thereunder is initiated, all the legal requirements therefor must be complied with. The court must be satisfied that all the ingredients of commission of an offence under the said provision have been complied with.

14. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the complaint petition does not disclose an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act.

15. For the reasons aforementioned, the impugned judgment being unsustainable is set aside. The appeal is allowed.

May 5, 2009
Rubi Devi & Anr vs State Of Bihar

2. The appellants herein are the married sisters-in- law of the complainant Punam Devi who had filed a complaint under Sections 498A and 323 of the Indian Penal and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. On conviction, the appellants have been sentenced by the trial court to one year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2500/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 21 days under Section 498A IPC and three months rigorous imprisonment under Section 323 IPC and a further sentence for two months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and payment of fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further imprisonment of seven days. The Crl.A. No. of 2011 @ SLP(Crl) 8982 of 2010 2 sentences aforesaid were affirmed by the Appellate court. The High Court in revision has reduced the sentence to eight months rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 498A but affirmed the conviction and sentence by the courts below awarded with respect to the other offences.

3. When this matter came up before this Court on the 12th November, 2010, notice was issued confined to the quantum of sentence, returnable within four weeks keeping in mind that the appellants herein were the married sisters-in-law of the complainant. We see that the appellants have undergone about five months of the sentence under Section 498A. We feel that in the facts of the case, the sentence awarded to the appellants under Section 498A of the IPC should be reduced to that already undergone. We make an order accordingly.

4. The appellants shall be released forthwith if not required in connection with any other case.

5. The appeal is dismissed with the above modification in the sentence.
Kurapati Maria Das vs M/S. Dr. Ambedkar Seva Samajan & Ors

3. The following facts will highlight the controversy: 2

5. In the said writ petition, one application being WPMP 23998/06 was also filed praying the Court to receive a copy of the report of the Inspector of Police dated 21.08.2006 giving the details of the representations made by the respondent No.1. Along with the writ petition, the 1st respondent had also filed copy of Service Rules of the present appellant maintained by In- charge of the Establishment of the office of Assistant Engineers operation Bapatla, Andhra Pradesh, State Electricity Board and seniority list of the Assistant Lineman prepared by the Southern Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Ltd. Operation Division, Tenali which was the successor of Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board. It was pointed that in these documents the appellant was described as the Christian Mala belonging to the Backward Class `C' category. Even in the Affidavit, in support of the writ petition, it was averred that the 1st respondent Association and the other respondents had came to know that appellant belonged to the backward class `C' category as he was a Mala converted to Christianity and that he had obtained employment in the Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board and continued in service till his retirement. In paragraph 11 of the affidavit in support of the petition, the petitioners had relied on the documents regarding the service record of the appellant. 5

9. Ultimately, on this basis he came to the conclusion that the writ petition was not only maintainable but was also liable to be allowed. In that manner he allowed the writ petition.

10. An appeal came to be filed against this judgment before the Division Bench. However, the Division Bench dismissed the said appeal. That is how the appellant is before us.

Consider the case where a person elected is not a citizen of India. Would the court allow the foreign citizen to sit and vote in the Legislative Assembly and not exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution?"

24. Once it is held that the aforementioned case was of no help to the respondents, the only other necessary inference which emerges is that the bar under Article 243 ZG would spring in action.

28. Be that as it may, in our opinion, the High Court clearly erred firstly, entertaining the writ petition, secondly in going into the disputed question of fact regarding the caste status, thirdly, in holding that the appellant did not belong to the Scheduled Caste and fourthly, in allowing the writ petition.

29. We, therefore, allow this appeal by setting aside two judgments one of the learned Single Judge and the other of the Division Bench of the High Court filed in appeal and direct the dismissal of the writ petition. The counsel's fee is assessed at Rs. 25,000/-. The appeal is allowed with the aforementioned directions.
Vijay Mallya vs Enforcement Directorate,Min.Of ...

7. It was further submitted that subsequent events which were not gone into by the High Court may also be seen. The complaint was filed on 8th March, 2000. During pendency of the complaint, the Act (FERA) was repealed on 1st June, 2000. Still, show cause notice dated 13th March, 2001 was issued to which reply was given and the adjudicating officer vide order dated 10th January, 2002 dropped the proceedings on merits. The Appellate Board dismissed the Revision Petition filed by the Department on 16th March, 2004. Against the said order, Criminal Appeal No.515 of 2004 was pending in the High Court.

(ii)in any other case, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or with fine or with both.”

15. Secondly, an appeal against the conclusion of the adjudicating officer that the proceedings against the appellant herein for the alleged violation of the various provisions of the FERA Act are required to be dropped has not even attained finality. Admittedly, such an order of the adjudicating officer confirmed by the statutory appellate authority is pending consideration in an appeal before the High Court. Though, in our opinion, the result of such an appeal is immaterial for determining the culpability of the appellant for the alleged violation of Section 40 read with Section 56, we must record that the submission made on behalf of the appellant in this regard itself is inherently untenable.

16. For all the abovementioned reasons, we do not see any merit in the appeal. We are also of the opinion that the entire approach adopted by the appellant is a sheer abuse of the process of law. Any other view of the matter would only go to once again establishing the notorious truth stated by Anatole France that – “the law in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets and to steal bread”.

17. The appeal is dismissed with exemplary costs quantified at rupees ten lakhs to be paid to the Supreme Court Legal Service Authority.

For Appellant(s) M/s. Khaitan & Co.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Surender Kumar Gupta, Adv.

Mr. B.K. Prasad, Adv.

Mr. B. V. Balaram Das,Adv.

The appeal is dismissed in terms of the signed Reportable judgment with exemplary costs quantified at rupees ten lakhs to be paid to the Supreme Court Legal Service Authority.

(Signed Reportable judgment is placed on the file)
Purna Chandra Kusal vs State Of Orissa

2. As per the prosecution story, the appellant Purna Chandra alias Chotu and P.W. 5, Brunda Jaiswal, the mother of the deceased girl, were neighbours and were residing in a basti near the railway line near Bondamunda Railway Crl.A. 1228 of 2008 2 Station. At about 5:00p.m. on the 14th November, 2002, P.W. 5 left her home for the local market to sell the coal that she had collected from the railway line leaving behind her son P.W. 10 and her deceased daughter who were both playing with the appellant. P.W. 5 returned home after fifteen or twenty minutes and found that her daughter was missing. She along with P.W. 10 searched for her but could not find her. She, however, received information after a short while that the dead body of her daughter was lying on the railway track. She rushed to that side and found the dead body lying in between two bogies. Information about the dead body was also conveyed to the police and a police party soon reached the spot. The body was also despatched for its post mortem and it was found that the girl had been raped and murdered by asphyxiation. A First Information Report was thereupon drawn up on the basis of the inquiry conducted by the police. During the course of the investigation, the police arrested the appellant and on a statement made by him under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, the clothes of the victim which he had hidden after her rape and murder, were recovered. Similarly on his disclosure, the clothes that he had been wearing too were recovered. The trial court relying on the evidence of P.W. 5 and P.W. 10 and also the fact that the recoveries had been made at the Crl.A. 1228 of 2008 3 instance of the appellant convicted and sentenced him as already mentioned above.

6. In this view of the matter, we dismiss the appeal but commute the sentence of death to life imprisonment. With this modification in the High Court's judgment, we dismiss the appeal.

7. Fee of the Amicus is fixed at `7,000/-.
United Bank Of India An Ors. vs United Bank Of India Retirees Welfare ...

3. A Memorandum of Settlement dated 29.10.1993 was entered into between the managements of 58 banks as represented by the Indian Banks’ Association on one hand and their workmen as represented by the All India Bank Employees’ Association on the other. Said memorandum recited that the parties had agreed to introduce pension scheme in banks for the workmen/employees in lieu of employers’ contribution to the provident fund and that the pension scheme so agreed was to be broadly on Central Government/Reserve Bank of India pattern. Paragraph 6 of the memorandum dealt with Dearness Allowance relief to the pensioners and it stipulated:

2. On and from 1st February, 2005, Dearness Allowance shall be payable at 0.18% of Pay."

7. The Bipartite Settlement dated 02.06.2005 was operational for a period of five years from 01.11.2002. Thereafter 9 th Bipartite Settlement was arrived at between the parties on 27.04.2010 and was made operational for five years from 01.11.2007. Clause 7(2) of the 9th Bipartite Settlement was as under:-

Note: The Dearness Relief as above shall be payable for the half year commencing from the 1st day of February and ending 31st day of July on the quarterly average of index figures published for the months October, November and December of the previous year and for the half year commencing from 1 st day of August and ending with the 31st day of January on the quarterly average of the index figures published for the months of April, May and June of the same year.”

2. It has been decided that, with effect from March 1, 2008, in supersession of the above instructions, the Dearness Relief in respect of employees who retired/died in harness before November 1, 2002, may be paid as per the rates indicated below:

3. The instructions contained in the “Note” at the end of paragraphs 2(iii) of the abovementioned circular will stand modified to that extent. You are requested to recalculate the Dearness Relief and make payment accordingly.

27. We therefore allow these appeals, set aside the judgments and orders passed in the appeals and dismiss Writ Petition No.507 of 2012 preferred by respondent Nos.1 to 4 herein. No order as to costs.
Ashok Kumar And Ors. vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors

10. Despite the aforesaid position, the appellants before this Court were not confirmed after three years’ continuous service. The appellants had passed the examination conducted by the Judicial Academy, Jharkhand at the end of the Induction Programme. The ostensible reason for the same was that they are not clearing a departmental Hindi examination held by the Board of Revenue. The appellants, thus, made a representation dated 29.4.2014, in which inter alia it was stated that during their tenure they were repeatedly informed and advised that they were exempted from taking part in the 5 Hindi examination as per the Rules of 2004 and, thus, they had not appeared for the departmental Hindi examination. This representation was, however, rejected by the High Court in the following terms:

13. In view of the aforesaid position this rejection was challenged by filing writ petitions, which have been dismissed by the common impugned order dated 3.3.2016.

26. We, thus, also hold that the appellants would be entitled to be covered under the old pension scheme relatable to their entry into the service in the year 2011.

27. The respondents will ensure that the differential mandatory benefits are remitted to the appellants within a period of three months from the date of the order.

28. The appeal is accordingly allowed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

May 11, 2018.
Mahadev Govind Gharge & Ors vs Spl.Land Acq Offcier Ukp.Jamkhandi Kar

3. The respondents filed an appeal against the judgment of the Reference Court to the High Court of Karnataka on 12.09.2001. The landowners were on a caveat. The High Court admitted the appeal on the same day and directed the office to post the same for hearing immediately after LCR were received.

4. On 22.10.2003, the High Court, vide the first impugned judgment, dismissed the appeal of the State holding that the point for consideration in the appeal was squarely covered by the judgment of that court dated 12.8.2003 in M.F.A. No. 3278 of 2001, as a result of which the appeal was liable to be dismissed. The High Court also held that the landowners were entitled to interest with effect from the date of the award, i.e. from 13.4.1999. Against the said judgment, the State came up in the present appeal before this court i.e. Civil Appeal No. 5113 of 2005.

7. On the second point, the High Court was of the opinion that the explanation offered by the cross objectors for the delay of 404 days was vague and did not amount to sufficient cause so as to condone the delay. Consequently, the cross objections were dismissed.

objections is thus condoned.

62. The High Court has therefore to hear afresh the appeal of the State as also the cross objections of the landowners. In that view of the matter, there is no need of passing a separate order on the appeal filed by the State before this Court and the same is thus disposed of.

63. Since considerable time has elapsed, we request the High Court to dispose of the appeal and the cross objections as early as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of this order before the High Court.

64. Parties to bear their own costs.
Sanjay Kumar Upadhyay vs Palak Dhari Yadav & Ors

2) In order to appreciate the issue involved in this appeal, which lies in a narrow compass, it is necessary to set out the relevant facts in brief infra.

7) The appellant also filed C.M.W.P. No. 19091 of 1990 before the High Court on the ground that despite appointment given to him and approval accorded, he was not being paid his monthly salary.

8) The Single Judge of the High Court by a common order dated 30.07.1999 allowed C.M.W.P. No. 19091 of 1990 filed by the appellant and dismissed C.M.W.P. No. 6681 of 1990 filed by respondent No.1. It was held that the appointment of the appellant on the single post of clerk by direct recruitment could be made and was thus a valid appointment in law. It was accordingly directed to the Institution that it should make the payment of salary along with its arrears within two months from the date of order to the appellant.

13) Shri P.N. Mishra learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant - (Shri Sanjay Kumar Upadhya) has urged only one submission. According to him, the first respondent (writ petitioner) retired from the service during pendency of these proceedings and, therefore, he is not now interested in prosecuting his writ petition out of which these appeals arise and that is perhaps the reason, why he has not come forward to oppose these appeals despite service of notice on him. It is submitted that since the Single Judge dismissed the respondent's writ petition and in consequence held the appointment as legal and proper, the appellant was allowed to continue on the post uninterruptedly. It was urged that even after the impugned decision was rendered declaring the appointment of the appellant as bad in law, this Court by order 27.11.2009 has stayed the operation of the impugned order as a result of which, the appellant continued to work on the post of "Clerk" till date and this is how since last 26 years he has been continuously working and drawing regular salary.

18) Second, admittedly the respondent (writ petitioner) has retired from the service and hence his case for promotion on the post in question cannot be now considered.

22) In the light of foregoing reasons, we are inclined to dispose of these appeals keeping in view the peculiar facts of the case and accordingly direct that the appellant (Mr. Sanjay Kumar Upadhaya) be allowed to continue on the post of Clerk on which he was appointed till the date of his retirement unless otherwise he is rendered himself unable to continue in service prior to the date of his retirement due to any legal reasons. It is further directed that on appellant demitting the office, the post in question be filled up by promoting the suitable in-service candidate as per the rules. If, however, in the meantime, the number of post is increased then the post be filled up as per the norms applicable for filling such posts as per rules.

23) With these directions, the impugned order stands modified to that extent. The appeals stand accordingly disposed of. No cost.
Reserve Bank Of India & Anr vs State Rep.By M.R. Bhavsar, Bombay

1. Challenge in these appeals is to the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court, dismissing the applications filed questioning issuance of process and also prosecution by which they are sought to be prosecuted for 1 alleged contravention of provisions of Section 7 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (in short the `Act'). The appellant in Criminal Appeal no.62/2002 is Principal of the College of Agricultural Banking, Pune (in short `the College'), which is run by the Reserve Bank of India (in short `RBI'), the appellant in criminal appeal no.61/2002. The Labour Enforcement Officer (Central) issued show-cause notice alleging that there was violation of the provisions of the Act thereby attracting prosecution. The appellants in Criminal Appeal no.61/2002 took the stand before the High Court that the Act does not apply to the RBI and/or the college because neither can be treated to be an establishment under the act. The High Court did not accept the stand and held that there was no scope of exercising power in terms of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short `the Code') or Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short `the Constitution'). The High Court found that the appellants are not prosecuted as an industry but as a government department/office and, therefore, can be treated to be an 2 establishment under the Act. Accordingly, the petitions were dismissed.

9. The appeals are accordingly allowed.