L-NLProc/TathyaNyaya-and-FactLegalLlama-NyayaScrape-Datasets huggingface dataset:
Manti Devi (Dead) Thr. Lrs vs State Of Bihar And Ors

1. The admitted facts are that one Shiv Nath Mahto (hereinafter referred to as “deceased employee”) was appointed as a Translator-cum- Proof Reader with the respondent in the year 1971. He earned certain promotions during his career in the year 2007, he was working as District Public Relation Officer. His normal age of retirement/superannuation was 30th November 2008. However, vide orders dated 29th June 2007 the State Government took a decision to compulsorily retire him from service under the provision of Rule 74 of Bihar Service Code. This order was made effective from 30th June 2007 as a result whereof, he was relieved from service w.e.f. 1st July 2007. Unfortunately, he died on 20th September 2008.

2. After his death, his widow Smt. Manti Devi sent a representation dated 24.11.2008 stating that her husband was illegally retired from service. She also submitted that as there was no earning member in the family, her elder son be given compassionate appointment. This representation did not invoke any response which forced Manti Devi to file Writ Petition in the High Court of Judicature at Patna. This Writ Petition came to be dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide orders dated 29th July 2011. Manti Devi filed Intra Court Appeal before the Division Bench which has also been dismissed by the High Court on 25.10.2011. Since Manti Devi also passed away thereafter, present SLP is preferred by the children of Manti Devi and deceased employee, challenging the judgment of the High Court.

5. This Special Leave Petition is rejected.
Managing Director,A.P.S.R.T.C vs M.Usha & Ors

Respondents filed an application under Sec.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, (in short `the Act') for compensation of Rs.12,00,000/-. It was their case that one M.Amarender Reddy (hereinafter referred to as `deceased') was traveling in a bus owned by the Corporation. The driver of the bus, who was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, suddenly applied the brakes as a result of which the deceased was thrown out of the bus and was injured and ultimately succumbed. He was aged about 24 years of age.

The learned Additional District Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (in short `MACT') Hyderabad, held that the deceased was also partly responsible for the accident as he was traveling on the footboard of the vehicle. Therefore, the contributory negligence was fixed at 25% and consequential deduction was made by fixing the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/-. Accordingly an amount of Rs.2,58,000/- was awarded as compensation with interest at 12% p.a. from the date of the claim.

Taking into account the relevant materials on record, we reduce the compensation to Rs.3,25,000/- to be paid along with interest at the rate fo 6% p.a. from the date of the claim. The balance amount, after adjustment of amounts already deposited shall be paid within a period of six weeks.

The appeals are allowed to the above extent.
Bishu Sarkar & Ors vs State Of West Bengal

Six persons namely Tarit Kundu, Bishu Sarkar, Sahadeb Sarkar, Sasthi Sarkar, Paresh Sarkar and Sukumar Ghosh were tried in Sessions trial No.18 of 1998 arising out of Raiganj Police Station case No.117 of 1995 for having committed the murder of one Raju Bose on 27.03.1995. All the accused were found guilty by the trial court vide its judgment and order dated 05.08.2000 and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for the offences under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. In Criminal Appeal No.255 of 2000, the High Court acquitted accused Nos.5 and 6 namely Paresh Sarkar and Sukumar Ghose but affirmed the conviction and sentence with respect to other four accused. Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.5755 of 2006 preferred by accused No.1 Tarit kundu was dismissed by this Court on 01.12.2006. This appeal by other three convicted accused challenges their conviction and sentence as affirmed by the High Court.

7. The injury found in the post mortem report was completely consistent with the ocular version of prosecution witnesses PW 2, PW 3 and PW 5 and the author of this injury according to the witnesses was accused No.1 Tarit Kundu. Special Leave Petition at the instance of Tarit Kundu having been dismissed the question that now arises is with regard to the involvement of the present appellants. The allegations coming from all the witnesses are consistent that none of the present appellants had dealt any blow by any weapon and all that they did was to participate in the scuffle. It is true that PWs 2 and 5 assert that the present appellants had caught hold of Raju Bose. But it is not clear from the record whether such act was so intended to enable accused No.1 to deal the fatal blow. Further, PW 3 is completely silent on this aspect.

8. In the circumstances we deem it appropriate to grant benefit of doubt to the present appellants and acquit them of the charge under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. This Appeal is thus allowed and the conviction and sentence recorded against the present appellants is set aside. The appellants shall be released forthwith unless their custody is required in connection with any other matter.
Commissioner Of Central Excise, Vapi vs M/S. Kraftech Products Inc

2. We, however, may notice the factual matrix of the matter from C.A. No.2597 of 2005.

3. Respondent manufactures hair dye. It is packed in pouches each containing 3 gms.. 3 pouches (sachets) are sold in one packet. The net weight of each pouch, as also the net weight of the commodity in 3 pouches and the maximum rate is printed on the pouches.

11. Appeals preferred thereagainst by the assessee/respondent to the Commissioner (Appeals) were allowed by an order dated 24th October, 2002. Appeal preferred by the appellant before the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai was dismissed by reason of the impugned judgment dated 10th May, 2004 stating :-

24. For the reasons abovementioned the impugned judgment does not warrant any interference. The Civil Appeal Nos. 2597, 2575, 2703-2704 of 2005, 325-326 of 2006 fail and are dismissed with costs. Counsel's fees assessed at Rs. 25,000/- in each case.

Civil Appeal Nos. 1029, 5069-5073 of 2007 [Re: M/s. Aero Pharma (Silvassa) Inc.]

Civil Appeal No. 1174 of 2007 [Re: M/s. Alfa Packaging]

26. The assessee manufactures Shampoo which is packed in sachets. Each sachet contains shampoo below 10 ml. It is packed in a carton containing more than 500 pieces. Such carton, according to the Revenue, is a multi-piece package.

When a lip smoother or a shampoo is packed in a carton keeping in view the quantity contained therein, the same cannot be said to be for retail sale. No person would ordinarily purchase for one's own use 72 lip smoothers or 500 pieces of shampoo.

27. Civil Appeal Nos. 1029, 5069-5073 of 2007 and Civil Appeal No. 1174 of 2007 are allowed with costs. Counsel's fees assessed at Rs. 25,000/- in each case.
Sri Ramakrishna Mutt Rep.By Manager vs M.Maheswaran & Ors

3. The conspectus of the facts would be necessary before we approach further. One Kannabiran Pillai had two wives. The name of his second wife was Kumudammal with whom he had got married before the advent of The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. As such, she was a legitimate wife. She had no children. The respondents herein are the children, or as the case may be, the 2 legal heirs of the children of the first wife of Kannabiran Pillai. Kannabiran died on 31.12.1956, while Kumudammal died on 18.3.1989. During his lifetime, Kannabiran had executed settlement deeds being Exhibits A-2, A-3 and A-4, wherein, he had created a life interest in favour of Kumudammal. The initial settlement deed was dated 20.10.1938. He created a supplementary deed on 4.3.1939 and a rectification deed dated 23.7.1943. Kumudammal remained in possession of the properties and enjoyed the same during her lifetime, inasmuch as, it was Kumudammal who used to recover the rents. Thus, she was in constructive possession of the property. In those settlement deeds, it was provided that after the demise of Kumudammal, the property would go in favour of the appellant/plaintiff Sri Ramakrishna Mutt.

5. This claim was contested by the defendants including the tenants and the children from the first wife of Kannabiran on the ground that the property could not have gone back as per the settlement deeds, as Kumudammal had become full owner of the property on account of Section 14(1) of The Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Issues were framed and as has been stated earlier, all the three Courts below held that Kumudammal had become absolute owner of the property under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act as she was in possession of those properties on the date when the Hindu Succession Act came on the anvil. The Hindu Succession Act came on the anvil on 17.6.1956. It is this unanimous verdict which is in challenge in the present appeal.

(Emphasis supplied).

14. In view of all this, we do not find any merits in the appeal and dismiss the same confirming the orders passed by the Courts below. However, under the circumstances, there shall be no orders as to the costs.

October 8, 2010.
Food Corporation Of India vs M/S.Chandu Construction & Anr

3. A brief factual background giving rise to the appeal is as follows:

4. As the claimants could not complete the work within the stipulated time, which was once extended, the FCI issued a show cause notice to them seeking to terminate the contract. Ultimately the contract was terminated vide order dated 15th November, 1987. The claimants invoked the arbitration agreement and requested the FCI to appoint an arbitrator. Since there was no response from the FCI, the claimants filed a suit in the High Court for appointment of an arbitrator. An arbitrator was appointed, who gave his award on 27th August, 1998. As payment in terms of the award was not made, the claimants again moved the High Court. The FCI, in turn, filed a petition in the High Court for setting aside of the award. With the consent of parties, the award was set aside and the matter was remitted to the Arbitrator for fresh adjudication.

21. Consequently, the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment of the High Court, to the extent it pertains to claim No.9 is set aside. However, on the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
State Of Tamil Nadu & Anr vs Saketh India Ltd

2. A quarrying lease was granted for ten years in favour of the respondent. Subsequently, the respondent submitted a representation to the appellant to refund the lease amount of ` 44.55 lakhs on the ground that the lease area was forest area and the forest department was in the process of declaring it as reserved forest. As the appellant did not refund the amount, the respondent filed a writ petition seeking refund of ` 44.55 lakhs with interest at 24% per annum. A learned single Judge, by order dated 13.11.2006, allowed the writ petition and directed refund of the lease amount. He did not, however, award any interest. Feeling aggrieved, the respondent filed a writ appeal. The appellate Bench granted interest at 18% per annum on the analogy of the provision for interest under Rule 36B. The said order is challenged by the State in this appeal by special leave.

4. On the facts and circumstances, we are of the view that interests of justice would be served if the rate of interest is reduced from 18% per annum to 12% per annum. We allow the appeal in part, accordingly.
Rajendra Yadav vs State Of M.P.& Ors

2. Appellant, a Police Constable, while he was working in the police station Rahatgarh, District Sagar along with A.S.I. Lakhan Tiwari and Head Constable Jagdish Prasad Tiwari stated to have received an amount of Rs.3,000 for not implicating certain persons involved in Crime No. 4 of 2002 charged under Sections 341, 294, 323, 506(B), 34 IPC. A complaint to that effect was filed by one Kundan Rajak, a resident of Village Sothia, PS Rahatgarh. Acting on that complaint, the appellant was charge-sheeted, along with two others, vide proceedings dated 6.5.2002 by the Superintendant of Police, Sagar. The following are the charges levelled against the appellant:

6. On the basis of the above finding, Lakhan Tiwari was demoted for three years from the post of A.S.I. to Head Constable. But the appellant and Jagdish Prasad Tiwari were dismissed from service.

7. Aggrieved by the same, appellant preferred an appeal before the Inspector General of Police (appellate authority), who dismissed the appeal vide his order dated 9.12.2004.

8. Appellant then filed a Writ Petition No. 10696 of 2007 before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur Bench, which was dismissed by the learned single Judge by his order dated 3.5.2007, against which a Writ Appeal No. 11 of 2007 was also preferred, which was also dismissed by the Division Bench vide its impugned judgment dated 6.9.2011.

14. We are of the view the principle laid down in the above mentioned judgments also would apply to the facts of the present case. We have already indicated that the action of the Disciplinary Authority imposing a comparatively lighter punishment to the co-delinquent Arjun Pathak and at the same time, harsher punishment to the appellant cannot be permitted in law, since they were all involved in the same incident. Consequently, we are inclined to allow the appeal by setting aside the punishment of dismissal from service imposed on the appellant and order that he be reinstated in service forthwith. Appellant is, therefore, to be re- instated from the date on which Arjun Pathak was re-instated and be given all consequent benefits as was given to Arjun Pathak. Ordered accordingly. However, there will be no order as to costs.

.....J. (DIPAK MISRA) New Delhi, February 13, 2013
R.V. Dev @ R. Vasudevan Nair vs Chief Secretary, Govt. Of Kerala & Ors

3. He filed a suit for damages in the year 1988. The State denied and disputed its vicarious liability for payment of any damages suffered by the appellant. The suit was dismissed by the learned subordinate Judge Cherthala by a judgment and decree dated 30.7.1991 inter alia holding :-

11. Submission of Mr. A. Raghunath, learned counsel for the appellant that clauses (a) and (b) would attract all the four situations contemplated by Order XXXIII Rule 11 in our opinion is misconceived. Clauses (a) and (b) would be attracted only when the suit is inter alia dismissed by reason of the contingencies contained in clauses (a) and (b). Clauses (a) and (b) will have no bearing and/or relevance, when a suit is dismissed on merit or when the plaintiff is dispaupered.

15. We, therefore, are of the opinion that there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment. The appeal is dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
Asraf Ali vs State Of Assam

3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

20. As rightly contended by learned counsel for the appellant no witness has stated that on the date of occurrence the accused had caused severe injury to the deceased by assaulting him on the head from behind. The circumstances which were relied upon by the trial Court to find the accused guilty were not specifically brought to the notice of the accused. Therefore, in essence, his examination under Section 313 of the Code was rendered an empty formality. On that count alone, the impugned judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained and is set aside. The conviction recorded stands set aside. The bail bond of the appellant who is on bail shall stand discharged.

21. The appeal is allowed.

19 ................................J. (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT) ................................J. (P. SATHASIVAM) New Delhi, July 17, 2008 20 21
Mahesh Choudhary vs State Of Rajasthan & Anr

2. Appellant was a partner of a firm known as M/s Saraswati Exports. He is also Director of a Company known as `Saraswati Exim Pvt. Ltd.' (for short, "the company").

3. M/s S.N.Kapur Exports is a firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 (for short, "firm"). The Complainant Vikram Kapoor (Respondent No.2 herein) is a partner thereof. The firm was engaged in manufacturing, selling and export of carpets, mats, etc. It developed various types of hand knotted new designs of carpets and acquired special skill therein.

Some of the clauses of the said agreement are as under:

5. The said agreement continued till 31.3.2003. Indisputably again with effect from 1.4.2003, another agreement has been entered into by and between the parties thereto whereby and whereunder it was agreed that the appellant would pay a sum of Rs.17 lakhs per month to the firm for a period of two years. It is furthermore not in dispute that whereas the firm claims a sum of Rs.4,49,85,581/- towards commission payable to it towards export but only a sum of Rs.3,21,06,910/- has been paid.

16. The charge-sheet, in our opinion, prima facie discloses commission of offences. A fair investigation was carried out by the Investigating Officer. The charge-sheet is a detailed one. If an order of cognizance has been passed relying on or on the basis thereof by the learned Magistrate, in our 13 opinion, no exception thereto can be taken. We, therefore, do not find any legal infirmity in the impugned orders.

17. We, however, must place on record that before us Mr. Dhankar stated that the appellant is ready and willing to get the disputes and differences between the parties settled. In that view of the matter and keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case and with a view to do complete justice to the parties, we, in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, direct that in the event the appellant appears before the learned Magistrate within a period of four weeks from date and files an application for grant of bail, he shall be released on bail on such terms and conditions as the learned Magistrate may seem fit and proper. In the event, the appellant files an application for exemption from his personal appearance, the same may also be considered on its own merits. It would be open to the complainant to consider the offer of the appellant.

18. Subject to the aforementioned directions, the appeal is dismissed.

MARCH 03, 2009
State Of U.P.Now Uttarakhand & Anr vs Vinit Traders & Investment Ltd.& Anr

AND WHEREAS the VENDOR has agreed to sell and the VENDEE, acting on the aforesaid representations, have agreed to purchase the said property and the lease-hold rights in the said land as an absolute estate at or for the price of Rs.2,85,000/- (Rupees Two Lacs eighty five thousand) only.” At the time of registration, the value of the land and building was shown as Rs.2,85,000/- and stamp duty of Rs.35,625/- was paid. Sub- Registrar, Almora did not agree with the valuation of the property, i.e., the land and building by respondent No.1 and its vendor and made a reference to the Collector under Section 47A(2) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, as applicable to the State of Uttarakhand, (for short, ‘the Act’). The latter got conducted an inquiry through the Tahsildar, who submitted valuation report dated 23.5.1995 with the finding that value of the property was Rs.47,25,200/-.

We may have finally decided the controversy but are unable to do so because neither party has placed on record copy of deed dated 29.9.1978 and without examining that document, it is not possible for us to record a firm finding about the nature and character of deed dated 3.5.1995. In this scenario, the only appropriate course is to remit the case to the Collector for fresh determination of the issue relating to valuation of the building and the land purchased by respondent No.1. Ordered accordingly.

The appeal is disposed of with a direction that the Collector shall call upon respondent No.1 to produce deed dated 29.9.1978, to which reference has been made in the deed executed in its favour by Aditya Mills Ltd. and then decide whether it is a lease deed simpliciter or a sale deed for the purpose of stamp duty.

July 26, 2013.
Bhupendra Singh Bhatia vs State Of M.P. And Others

The facts of the case are that appellant challenged the order of the Additional Commissioner dated 27.12.1996, whereby the rates to be paid by the Government to the whole-sellers of foreign liquor to the State Government for sale of liquor through F.L.10 licence through its retail outlets in the tribal sub-plan area, were fixed on the basis of the decision taken in the meeting held on 23.12.1996 under the Chairmanship of the Additional Excise Commissioner, Gwalior. The appellant further challenged the order dated 12.2.1997 of the Additional Commissioner, Excise, as contained in Annexure P/8 filed with the petition, directing the District Excise Officer that the rates decided by the Committee are being made effective from 1.4.1996 and the difference of the amount between the rates at which the whole-sellers were paid from 1.4.1996 till the decision of the Committee and the rates now decided by the Committee should be recovered/adjusted from the whole-sellers.

With respect, we cannot agree with the reasoning of the High Court.

For the reasons given above, this appeal is allowed. The impugned judgments of the Learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of the High Court, and the orders of the Additional Excise Commissioner dated 27.12.1996 and Excise Commissioner dated 12.2.1997 are set aside. It is held that the rates fixed by the Purchase Committee in April/May, 1996 are applicable for the entire financial year 1996-1997. The prayers in the writ petitions are allowed. No costs.
M/S. Govind Impex (P) Ltd. & Ors vs Appropriate Authority Income Tax Deptt

1. Appellants are the owners of property bearing No.B-68, Greater Kailash, Part-I, New Delhi and they let out the same at a monthly rental of Rs.2,50,000/- with effect from Ist June, 1991 for a period of nine years renewable for a further period of nine years. The appropriate authority of the Income-tax Department, respondent herein issued show cause notice to the appellant dated 4th December, 1995, inter alia, alleging that since the lease is for a period of nine years extendable for 2 a further period of nine years, it was a lease for a period of more than 12 years and hence the provision of Chapter XXC of the Income-tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") would be attracted and the lessor and the lessee were obliged to submit Form 37-1 within 15 days of the draft agreement. Appellants submitted their show cause on 12th January, 1996, inter alia, contending that the lessee had an option to renew the lease by giving three months' notice prior to the expiry of the lease and further a fresh lease deed was required to be executed and registered, hence the provision of Chapter XXC of the Act shall not be attracted. The show cause filed by the appellants was considered and finding no merit, the appropriate authority rejected the same by order dated 24th April, 2001 holding the appellants guilty of not complying with the provisions of Section 269UC of the Act. Accordingly, a complaint was laid on 30th April, 2001 under Section 267AB read with Section 278B of the Act before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate alleging contravention of Section 269UC of the Act. Learned Magistrate by its order dated 30 th April, 2001 took cognizance of the offence and issued process against the appellants.

8. As the matter is pending since long, we direct the Magistrate in sesin of the case to conclude the trial within six months from the date of appearance of the appellants. We further direct the appellants to appear before the Court in sesin of the case within six weeks from today. 10

9. In the result, we do not find any merit in the appeal and it is dismissed accordingly with the direction aforesaid.

................................................J [HARJIT SINGH BEDI] ................................................J [CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD] NEW DELHI DECEMBER 7, 2010.