L-NLProc/TathyaNyaya-and-FactLegalLlama-NyayaScrape-Datasets huggingface dataset:
Reg. General, Calcutta High Court vs Shrinivas Prasad Shah & Ors

3. The Commission circulated a notification on 17th January, 2007 for the information to the candidates on 17th February, 2007 of its conducting West Bengal Judicial Service Examination 2007. In response to the said information the respondent submitted his application by paying an amount of Rs.200/-, as required by the candidates in the general category in order to appear for the examination of 2007. In the application form he had mentioned that he belonged to ‘Gonda Community’ - Scheduled Tribe Community and also attached a certificate from the Director, Backward Class Welfare, West Bengal. The Commission considered the application of the respondent as a general candidate since he had not produced the certificate required to be produced from the competent authority. The respondent then attended preliminary examination and final examination as a general candidate. The result of the West Bengal Judicial Service Examination 2007 was published in the newspapers on 29.9.2007 and the respondent was shown as a general category candidate. Later the respondent appeared for the personality test as a general category candidate on 4.12.2007. The Commission published the list of 152 selected candidates on 20.3.2008 and the respondent’s name was rank No.86 among the general category candidates, he could not get appointment.

Explanation II – For the removal of doubt, it is hereby declared that for the purposes of this Act, the District Magistrate, South 24-Parganas, or the Additional District Magistrate, South 24- Parganas, authorized by the District Magistrate, South 24-Parganas, under clause (b) of this section, shall have jurisdiction over Calcutta.

16. In our view, the guidelines in in Kumari Madhuri Patil’s case (supra) or the brochure issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of Personnel and Training, New Delhi would not override the specific conditions stipulated in the notification (information to the candidates) of compliance of the provisions of the West Bengal Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Identification) Act, 1994. In such circumstances we find no error in the decision taken by the Commission in not entertaining the application of the respondent as a member of the ST Community due to non-production of the certificate from the competent authority specified in the above-mentioned Act.

17. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the Judgment of the High Court is set aside. However, we are inclined to record the submission of the learned senior counsel, appearing for the appellant that the respondent would be appointed as a judicial officer in the West Bengal Judicial Service consequent to the examination conducted in the year 2010 since he has produced the Certificate issued by the competent authority under The West Bengal Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Identification) Act, 1994. Appeal is, therefore, allowed as above, however there will be no order as to costs.
Bhikulal Kedarmal Goenka (D) By L.Rs vs State Of Maharashtra And Anr

Two pieces of the appellant's (since deceased. and is now represented by his legal representatives) land measuring 2250 and 5034 sq.meters were sought to be compulsorily acquired, vide Notifications dated 30.10.1986 and 13.11.1986 respectively, issued under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'). Admittedly, the purpose for which the land was acquired was to raise a structure for a primary school and to provide playgrounds therefor. Vide awards dated 31.08.1987 and 09.11.1987, the Special Land Acquisition Officer determined the market value of the land measuring 2250 sq.meters at Rs.110/- per sq.meter. For the land measuring 5034 sq.meters, the Special Land Acquisition Officer bifurcated the same. For the land adjoining the road, he awarded Rs.140/- per sq.meter, and for the remaining land situated away from the road, he awarded Rs.110/- per sq.meter. In the above determination, the acquired land was divided into 18 plots, out of which six were awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.140/- per sq.meter, and the remaining at the rate of Rs.110/- per sq.meter.

Dissatisfied with the determination rendered by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, the appellants preferred reference under Section 18 of the Act seeking enhancement of the market value of the land. The Reference Court, by a common order dated 25.01.1996, determined the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.140/- per sq.meter. However, for adjusting the value representing large areas of the plot, the Reference Court considered it appropriate to make a deduction of 1/3rd from the total amount calculated.

Still not satisfied with the compensation awarded, the appellant approached the High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Nagpur Bench, Nagpur)(hereinafter referred to as `the High Court') by preferring First Appeal Nos.638 and 639 of 1996. The same came to be disposed of by the impugned order dated 15.10.2012. The High Court, after examining the evidence recorded before the Reference Court, arrived at the conclusion, that the lands acquired were situated within the heart of the town, and were surrounded by residential houses, commercial complexes etc. and major part of the area adjoined the Akola-Akot Road. It is therefore, that the High Court determined the market value at Rs.200/- per sq.meter. However, the High Court directed deduction at the rate of 1/3rd towards development charges and thereupon, arrived at the conclusion, that the market value payable ought to have been at the rate of Rs.133/- per sq.meter. The High Court rounded the rate determined, by awarding the appellants Rs.135/- per sq.meter.

The appeals are allowed in the above terms.

The appellants shall also be entitled to all consequential statutory benefits. Since the acquisition of the appellants' land relates to the year 1986-87, we consider it just and appropriate to direct the respondents to disburse the compensation payable to the land loser i.e. the appellants herein within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

JULY 28, 2016.
Lankeshwar Malakar And Ors vs R. Deka And Ors

The lands in suit and other lands belong to one Durga Malakar. He is the paternal uncle of the plaintiffs' father Nareswar Malakar. The exact date of death of Durga Malakar is not known. He left behind his widow, namely, Gandhari. The dispute between the parties revolves on the execution of a will by Durga Malakar in favour of the plaintiffs on 8.10.1958 and execution of a purported Deed of Gift dated 5.5.1958, which was in the name of his wife Gandhari.

The properties mentioned in the will inter alia refers to Patta No. 91 (old), which is equivalent to Patta No. 254 (new), consisting of Dag No. 1628 (new), 548 (old) measuring an area of 1 Bigha 2 Katha as also Patta No. 57 (old), (368 new) being Dag No. 83, measuring 2 Kathas and 16 lechas.

The learned first Appellate Court, therefore, in our opinion, was not correct in ignoring the said fact.

Although we are not satisfied with the purported substantial question formulated by the High Court, having regard to the fact that the High Court failed to determine the question in the proper perspective, it is necessary that the second appeal be directed to be considered afresh on merit. We, therefore, set aside the impugned judgment passed by the High Court and remit the matter back to it for consideration thereof afresh. It will be open to the High Court to formulate fresh question/questions of law.

The appeal is allowed accordingly. No costs.
Radhe vs State Of Chhattisgarh

3. Challenge before the High Court was to the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Manendragarh. The trial Court had found the appellant guilty of offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the `IPC') but found the co-accused, namely, Kashi and Dev Kumar to be not guilty. The appellant was sentenced to undergo RI for life and fine with default stipulation.

17. The above are only broad guidelines and not cast-iron imperatives. In most cases, their observance will facilitate the task of the court. But sometimes the facts are so intertwined 13 and the second and the third stages so telescoped into each, that it may not be convenient to give a separate and clear cut treatment to the matters involved in the second and third stages.

20. It is nobody's case that the appellant had assaulted any of the accused or that he had participated in the quarrel. 14

22. In the instant case, in a brutal manner the appellant had chopped both legs of the deceased and with the weapon caused other injuries on the body of the deceased. Above being the position, there is no scope for interference in this appeal. The appeal is dismissed.

................................J. (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT) ...............................J. (P. SATHASIVAM) 15 New Delhi, July 7, 2008 16
Gajraj Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

2. The facts necessary for deciding this case are that 15 persons were tried for the murder of Babusingh on the night intervening 13/14th September 1992 near Village Kalma, Dewas District, Madhya Pradesh. The trial court acquitted 8 persons and convicted 7 persons. Gajrajsingh, Harisingh, Bhagwansingh @ Bhaggu, Peer Singh, Gulabsingh, Shobharam and Thakursingh were convicted by the trial court for having committed the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 and 148 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) and all the 7 accused were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.

4. These appeals can be disposed of on a short point and therefore it is not necessary to deal with the entire evidence. The case of the prosecution is that at about 11.30 p.m. on the night intervening 13/14th September, 1992, Babusingh was returning to his Village Kalma from Dewas on a motorcycle. He was accompanied by Gattu (PW­8) and Vasu (not examined) who were pillion riders. When they were nearing Kalma Village they were attacked by a large number of persons who were armed with dharia, swords etc.. After the attack took place, the motorcycle fell down and the assailants, which according to the prosecution included all the 15 accused, attacked Babusingh and some of them gave blows to Babusingh with sharp edged weapons and as a result of the injuries Babusingh died. It is not disputed before us that Babusingh was, in fact, murdered. The only issue is whether the three appellants were present at the spot or not?

6. Thereafter, the police lodged a formal First Information Report (FIR), investigated the matter and recorded evidence of the witnesses. The body of the deceased was sent for postmortem and after completion of the investigation, charge­ sheet was filed against 15 persons who were tried and some were convicted as detailed hereinabove.

3. Harisingh died when the appeal was pending before the High Court, and Shobharam died during the pendency of the appeal in this Court, therefore, the appeal stands abated against them. We are informed at the Bar that Gulabsingh and Thakursingh did not file any appeal and they have already undergone the sentence imposed upon them. Thus, we are left only with the appeals of Gajrajsingh, Bhagwansingh and Peer Singh.

12. Therefore, a grave doubt is raised with regard to the presence of these three accused at the place of incidence. The 10 benefit of doubt obviously has to go to the accused­appellants. In view of the above discussion, we allow the appeals and set aside the judgment of the trial court dated 19 th November, 2001 in Sessions Case No.57 of 1993 and of the High Court dated 27 th June, 2011 in Criminal Appeal No.1354 of 2001 so far as the conviction of the appellants; Peer Singh, Bhagwansingh and Gajrajsingh is concerned. They are acquitted and directed to be set free forthwith if not required in any other case. All pending applications are accordingly disposed of.
Neeti Chatterji vs Rahul Chatterji & Anr

2. During the pendency of the transfer petition, the parties have entered into a compromise deed on 4.1.2008. They have filed the said deed with a compromise petition and two supporting affidavits on 7.1.2008. The parties have agreed to dissolve their marriage by mutual consent under Section 13 B of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. They have prayed that the pending matters be transferred to this Court so that this Court can dispose of the matters in terms of the compromise.

The Family Court at Mumbai is directed to send all records relating to the case to the District Judge, Delhi, without delay. The parties would be at liberty to move the District Court, Delhi for divorce by mutual consent. In the event of such application the Court would pass appropriate orders for divorce.

4. The parties will appear before the District Judge, Delhi on 18.2.2008 without notice and take further orders. The District Judge, Delhi, may if he so deems fit, assign the matter to any other appropriate court for disposal, on parties' appearance on 18.2.2008.

5. copies of this order be sent to the Family Court, Mumbai at Bandra and to the District Judge, Delhi.

The transfer petition is allowed accordingly.
Kuldeep Sharma vs State Of H.P. & Anr

2. According to the prosecution, in the year 1984 the appellant Kuldeep Sharma and Co-accused Rajinder Sharma were posted as Junior Engineer and Assistant Engineer 2 respectively at Jubbal Sub-division of the Irrigation and Public Health Department of the Government of Himachal Pradesh.

A telegram alleging malpractices against both of them were received on 26th September, 1984 in the Anti-Corruption Unit at Shimla. A preliminary investigation was conducted and on that basis, First Information Report No. 5/84 was lodged.

Investigation revealed that muster roll no. 146 (Ext. PW-1/A) for the period 1st of July, 1984 to 31st of July, 1984 which pertained to the running and maintenance of flow irrigation scheme was earlier given to PW-1 Chander Singh, Meter Reader, who returned with the endorsement `blank' on it to the co-accused. On 29th of August, 1984, co-accused smeared the word `blank' with red ink and handed over to PW-2 Dula Ram to enter the names of two labourers and to mark them present for the month of July, 1984. In the said muster roll, the names of Kanshi Ram and Ram Bahadur were recorded by PW-2 Dula Ram, the then Supervisor and it was countersigned by the appellant. On the basis of the said entry, wages were paid to the aforesaid persons. According to the prosecution on investigation it transpired that the aforesaid labourers did not 3 work for the period for which they were marked "present" in the muster roll.

6. In order to bring home the charge, the prosecution has altogether examined 15 witnesses besides a large number of documents were exhibited. The defence of the appellant is denial simplicitor and he termed the incriminating evidence against him as false when examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On appraisal of the evidence, the Trial Court convicted the appellant and the co-accused for 5 offence under Sections 120-B, 467, 468, 471 and 420 of the IPC and Section 5(2) of the P.C. Act and sentenced them to various terms of imprisonment.

7. Appellant as also the co-accused aggrieved by their conviction and sentence preferred separate appeals. The High Court by the impugned judgment dismissed both the appeals with some reduction in sentence.

order.

12. Mr. Panda, lastly submits that the occurrence had taken place as back in the year 1984 and the appellant had not only suffered ordeal of trial and appeal for long 27 years and infact lost the job also and in such a situation, the ends of justice shall be met if the sentence of the appellant is reduced to the period already undergone. It is relevant to state that the High 9 Court while dismissing the appeal has reduced the substantive sentence to one year each for the offence under Section 120-B, 467, 468, 471 and 420 of the IPC besides Section 5(2) of the P.C. Act. We are of the opinion that sentence awarded to the appellant in the facts and circumstances of the case cannot be said to be excessive, calling for interference in this appeal.

13. In the result, we do not find any merit in the appeal and it is dismissed accordingly.
M/S. Ravindra & Associates vs Union Of India

3. It appears that the appellant was awarded a contract for construction of married accommodation for petty officers of the Navy at Rameswaram, Kochi. The value of the work awarded was Rs. 5,44,47,087/-. The work which commenced on 24.12.1990 had to be completed by 23.6.1993 and admittedly it was completed by the said date.

4. Disputes arose between the parties and the parties invoked the arbitration clause provided in the General Conditions of Contract. The claimant-appellant made claims under 25 heads. The arbitrator awarded to the claimant a 2 sum of Rs. 70,94,265/- and allowed simple interest at the rate of 18% from the date of accrual for cause of action till date of reference, from the date of reference till date of award and from the date of award till the date of decree or date of payment whichever is earlier. An application by the appellant-claimant was filed before the Principal Sub Judge, Kochi to make the award a Rule of the Court. The respondent-Union of India also filed an application for setting aside the award of the arbitrator. The Sub-Judge allowed the application of the appellant and made it a Rule of the Court, but awarded 12% interest on the amount awarded from the date of decree till realization and dismissed the application of the respondent-Union of India. Aggrieved against the order dated 9.10.1996 of the Sub-Judge, Kochi the respondent herein preferred an appeal before the High Court which has been allowed by the impugned judgment and order. Hence, the present appeal.

11. For the reasons given above, we are of the opinion that the High Court has wrongly interfered with the arbitration award. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment and order is set aside.
Dhansingh Vitthalrao Bhoite vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors

The appellant claims to be the owner of land bearing Gat No.24 admeasuring 1 hectare 8 ares situated at village Nanvij, Taluka Daud, District Pune. The said land was submerged in water on construction of K.T. Weir at Sonawadi area and his standing crop was destroyed. As no compensation was paid and as he was not rehabilitated, he filed Writ Petition No.4090 of 2000 seeking a direction for allotment of an alternative land (Survey No.50/1, Mauje) and for payment of compensation for loss of standing crop. The said petition was disposed of by order dated 18.12.2000 by directing the second respondent to either allot a suitable alternative land to the appellant within three months or declare an award for compensation for acquisition of land within six months. The Appellant however thereafter made an application dated 9.2.2001 to second Respondent to allot Gat No.197, Mauje - Daund instead of the land earlier suggested. The appellant again approached the High Court by filing another Writ Petition No.4021 of 2002 seeking a direction to respondents to forthwith allot Gat No.197 measuring 5 acres situated at Mauje Daund, Taluka Daund, District Pune, which he had identified as available alternative land and also pay Rs.32500/- as crop compensation. The second writ petition was disposed of by an order dated 20.8.2002 by the High Court, holding that the appellant was not entitled to alternative land. It however directed the respondents to declare the award and pay the compensation in regard to the submerged land. Thereafter, the appellant filed Civil Application No.2094 of 2003 reiterating his prayer for allotment of the said five acres of land. The civil application which was in the nature of a petition for review of the order dated 20.8.2002, was rejected by order dated 23.2.2004. The orders dated 20.8.2002 and 23.2.2004 are challenged in these appeals by special leave.

7. In so far as these appeals are concerned, the question is limited. As the State Government has not issued a declaration under section 13 of the Act, the appellant will not be entitled to seek benefit under the provisions of the said Act as rightly held by the High Court. We find no reason to interfere with the order of the High Court and the appeals are dismissed accordingly.

..................................J [R. V. Raveendran] ................................J [P. Sathasivam] New Delhi;

June 20, 2008
Tulsan vs Pyare Lal And Ors

The parties are co-sharers. Respondent No. 1 herein filed a suit against Bir Singh, Respondent No. 3 as also Appellant herein for permanent injunction. Appellant is wife of Respondent No. 2. A settlement was arrived at by and between the parties. The terms of the settlement were reduced to writing. It was filed before the Court and accepted. A decree was passed on the basis of the terms of the said settlement. It was recorded therein:

Pursuant to or in furtherance of the said consent decree, Respondents allegedly moved the Revenue Authorities for mutation of their names. The same was denied on the ground that by reason of the said consent decree the right, title and interest of Respondents had not been declared.

The learned Trial Judge while dismissing the said suit allowed the counter- claim. The appeal preferred thereagainst was, however, allowed by the Appellate Court stating:

A Special Leave Petition filed by Appellant was allowed to be withdrawn with liberty to file a review petition. The review petition filed by Appellant was dismissed observing :

For the reasons aforementioned, the appeal is allowed with liberty to Respondents to file an appropriate application, if they so desire, for measurement of lands in question and division of lands in terms of the said consent decree. We further declare that the consent decree shall be binding on the Revenue Authorities. No costs.
Management Of Ksrtc Th. Chief Law ... vs R. Krishna Reddy

The State of Karnataka merged a part of the Dearness Allowance with the basic pay wherefor a Government Order being Government Order No. FD 27 SRS 95 was issued on 28.11.1995 which is to the following effect:

Respondent herein was appointed on 4.06.1959 as a conductor. He retired as traffic inspector on 30.03.1996. He claimed gratuity in terms of the said Government Order dated 28.11.1995. The same having been denied to him, he filed an application before the Assistant Labour Commissioner and Controlling Authority under the Act. By an award dated 6.02.1998, he was held to be entitled thereto. An appeal thereagainst was preferred by the appellant. The Appellate Authority in terms of its order dated 15.09.1998 allowed the said appeal. The respondent filed a writ petition before the High Court. A learned Single Judge by reason of a judgment and order dated 13.10.2003 allowed the said writ petition inter alia holding:

An intra-court appeal filed thereagainst by the appellant was dismissed.

What is, therefore, payable by way of gratuity in terms of the scheme was 30 days wages for each completed year of service.

For the reasons aforementioned, we are unable to agree with the submissions made by the learned Solicitor General that the consequences of merger in a case of this nature shall be different in case of addition to the Dearness Allowance in the scale of pay.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the opinion that it is not a case where this Court should take a view different from that of the High Court. The Appeal is dismissed with costs. Counsel's fee assessed at Rs. 10,000/-.