L-NLProc/TathyaNyaya-and-FactLegalLlama-NyayaScrape-Datasets huggingface dataset:
S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd vs Neeta Bhalla & Anr

Appellant herein is a company registered and incorporated under the Companies Act. Respondent No. 1 was a Director of a company known as M/s. Direct Finance and Investment Ltd., New Delhi. She allegedly submitted her resignation on 15.04.1994.

Against the said company, the Managing Director thereof, Respondent No. 1 herein as also another director, a complaint petition was filed by the appellant alleging that the Company represented by its Managing Director had called for inter-corporate deposit for a short period of 15 days to the extent of rupees two crores and to such a proposal it agreed. The rate of interest for such deposit was stipulated at 25% per annum therefor payable within 15 days. A promissory note was executed by the accused No. 2 on behalf of the Company. The date of maturity of the said deposit was fixed on 15.03.1995. Upon expiry of the period of deposit, the accused Company represented by its Managing Director allegedly issued a cheque for a sum of rupees two crores as also a cheque for a sum of Rs. 1,58,219.00 and another cheque for a sum of Rs. 8,33,334.00 drawn on Canara Bank, Janpath, New Delhi. All the cheques were dated 15.08.1996. The cheques for Rs. 8,33,334.00 and Rs. 1,58,219.00 represented the interest part on the deposit of rupees two crores for 15 days. The said cheques upon presentation were dishonoured on the ground of insufficient funds. It stands accepted that a notice dated 21.09.1996 was issued by the appellant asking the accused No. 1 Company to pay the said sum. The said notice was served upon the accused Nos. 2 and 3, viz., the Managing Director and another Director of the Company. Respondent No. 1 who was arrayed as the accused No. 4 in the complaint petition was however not served with any notice. The address of Respondent No. 1 herein accused No. 4 was shown as the Director of the Company being resident of 353, Bhera Enclave, Outer Ring Road, Delhi 110 041. We may, however, notice that in the complaint petition her address had been shown to be Outer Ring Road, Paschin Vihar, Delhi 110 041.

In the complaint petition the allegations made inter alia are as under:

Appellant along with the said complaint petition annexed a purported resolution dated 15.02.1995 authorizing the Managing Director of the Company to execute the promissory note which reads as under:

We, therefore, are of the opinion that the judgment of the High Court cannot be faulted.

It is, therefore, an authority for the proposition that the High Court is not completely denuded of its power to exercise inherent jurisdiction for the second time.

For the reasons aforementioned, we do not find any error whatsoever in the impugned judgment. The appeal is dismissed with costs. Counsel's fee assessed at Rs. 10,000/-.
Kedar Nath Kohli (Dead) By Lrs. vs Sh. Baldev Singh

4. The appellant’s father, namely, Mehar Chand Kohli was the original plaintiff. He filed a Civil Suit No. 354/03/75 against the defendants claiming possession of Plot no. 27 bearing Municipal No. 1443 situated in Wazir Nagar, Gali No. 7, Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi on the ground that the father of the appellant was the actual owner of the said property and the defendants were in illegal possession of the same. The said Mehar Chand Kohli, i.e. the original plaintiff, died on 13.7.1980 and the appellant was thus substituted as plaintiff in place of his father. The trial Court dismissed the suit on 21.9.2016. The judgment of the trial Court is confirmed by the first appellate Court in Regular Civil Appeal No. 29 of 2011 dated 7.12.2011. As mentioned supra, the Regular Second Appeal No. 133 of 2012 filed by the appellant questioning the judgments of the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court also came to be dismissed by the High Court on 7.2.2013.

5. Brief facts leading to this appeal are as follows: 3

24. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgments of the High Court, first appellate Court and the trial Court are set aside and the civil suit no. 354/03/75 filed by the 16 original plaintiff Late Mehar Chand Kohli before the trial Court is decreed.
Mahadev P Kambekar(D) Tr.Lrs. vs Shree Krishna Woolen Mills Pvt. Ltd.

2) In order to appreciate the controversy involved in these appeals which lies in a narrow compass, it is necessary to set out the relevant facts hereinbelow.

3) The appellants are the legal representatives of Mahadev Pandurang Kambekar, who was the original defendant whereas the respondent­Shree Krishna Woolen Mills Pvt. Ltd. is the plaintiff in the Civil Suit out of which these appeal arise.

4) The dispute between the parties relates to the land bearing survey Nos.58 and 60 (re­numbered as CTS 741,741/1 to 741/7) situated at Nahur­ Bhandup in Bombay suburban District (hereinafter referred to as “the suit land”).

5) The plaintiff claims to be the lessee of the suit land whereas the defendant claims to be the owner/lessor of the suit land on the terms set out in 2 the indenture of the lease deed dated 20.06.1958 executed between the parties.

8) The suit was based essentially on clause 7 of the Lease Deed which, according to the plaintiff, enabled them to elect and exercise their right to purchase the suit land from the defendant on fulfillment of the conditions set out therein.

9) The defendant on being served filed the written statement. The defendant denied the claim and at 3 the same time also filed his counter claim against the plaintiff seeking their eviction from the suit land and the arrears of rent.

12) So far as the defendant's (appellants herein) Appeal No.169/1999 was concerned, it arose out of the decree passed against him for specific performance of the contract, whereas so far as the 4 plaintiff's (respondent herein) appeal (No.199/1999) was concerned, it arose out of the decree passed against them for possession of the suit land and arrears of rent.

32) Indeed, in the light of what we have held supra on legal question, it is not necessary. It is now for the parties to raise all such factual issue(s) such as how much area was leased out, how much area is outside the lease, who are the owners of the leased area and the areas adjacent to leased area and all incidental questions arising therefrom before the competent Court.

33) It is apart from the fact that these factual issues were also not gone into by the Division Bench and indeed rightly. It is for this reason, we find no ground to deal with them for the first time in these appeals else it will cause prejudice to the rights of 16 the parties while prosecuting their grievances before the competent Court. Now, it will be for the competent Court to come to its own conclusion on their respective merits and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

34) In view of the foregoing discussion and the observations, we find no merit in these appeals. The appeals thus fail and are accordingly dismissed.

January 31, 2019 17
B. Suresh Yadav vs Sharifa Bee & Anr

4. First respondent herein filed a complaint petition. The parties hereto entered into an agreement for sale in respect of a house admeasuring 350 square yards for a consideration of Rs.23,80,000/-. A sum of Rs.5,00,000/- was paid by way of advance. A sale deed was executed on 30.9.2005 by the appellant herein on receipt of the balance sum of Rs.18,79,000/-.

5. Indisputably on or about 29.9.2005, two rooms, allegedly, constructed on the said lands were demolished. A suit was filed in relation thereto. Respondent No.1 was also defendant in the said suit. In the written statement, she stated :

14. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that in the facts and circumstances obtaining herein, no case has been made out for proceeding with the criminal case.

18. For the reasons aforementioned, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained. It is set aside accordingly. Appeal is allowed. No costs.
I.C.A.R. & Ors vs Asit Baran Chaudhuri & Anr

The High Court while allowing the Writ Petition filed by the respondent herein directed the appellant-authorities to consider the claim of the respondent for benefit of Agricultural Research Service in scientist `S' Grade with effect from the date he became entitled. The High Court has also further observed that while considering aforesaid, the Authority concerned will also consider the cases of the employees junior to the respondent herein as mentioned in paragraph 37 of the Writ Petition. For the said purpose, the respondent herein was granted liberty to make a representation before appropriate Authority along with a copy of the order of the High Court and in such cases, the said Authority will decide the matter within two months from submission of the representation. It is pertinent to notice that no one appeared on behalf of the appellant-Authorities before the High Court. The High Court considered the matter in the absence of any argument being advanced on behalf of the appellants. Subsequently, a Review Petition was filed by the appellant herein which was also dismissed by the High Court. Aggrieved by the above two orders, the above Civil Appeal has been filed. It is now stated by the learned senior counsel for the respondent herein that pursuant to the direction given by the High Court, the respondent has already made a representation on 16.12.2004 to the Secretary, Department of Agricultural Research and Education, Ministry of Agriculture-Cum-The Director General, Indian Council of Agricultural Research, Krishi Bhavan, New Delhi and other authorities. Now that the representation was made pursuant to the directions given by the High Court, we direct the appellants herein to dispose of the representation within two weeks from today in accordance with the statutory rules and communicate the said order to the respondent herein immediately after the disposal of the said representation. While disposing of the Writ Petition, the High Court has also directed the concerned authorities to consider the cases of the employees junior to the respondent herein as mentioned in paragraph 37 of the Writ Petition. The said direction, in our opinion, is not justified and uncalled for. We, therefore, set aside that direction and direct the appellant-authorities to consider the representation made by the respondent herein alone in accordance with law and as indicated above.

The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.

No costs.
State Of Haryana vs M/S Liberty Enterprises

3. For the sake of convenience we state the facts occurring in Civil Appeal No. 1618 of 2009 - Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.23970 of 2007 - State of Haryana vs. M/s. Liberty Enterprises.

4. M/s. Liberty Enterprises (assessee) is engaged in the REPORTABLE manufacture of shoes in the State of Haryana. They availed exemption from payment of sales tax under Section 13B of Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 read with Rule 28A of Haryana General Sales Tax Rules, 1975 respectively. Assessee was granted Exemption Certificate No.116 for an amount of Rs.533 lakhs with effect from 15.3.95 to 14.3.2002 in terms of Rule 28A of the said 1975 Rules. The assessee availed benefit of exemption till 31.12.96 and from 1.1.97 the assessee switched over to the deferment tax payment scheme. Till 31.12.96 the exemption granted to the assessee was for an amount of Rs.53.94 lakhs. On exercising option of deferment, an entitlement Certificate No.07 for an amount of Rs.479.06 lakhs effective for the period 1.1.97 to 14.3.2002 was issued to the assessee in place of earlier Exemption Certificate.

5. The assessment of the assessee for the year 1996-97 was finalized vide order dated 12.3.01; from the total gross turnover the Assessing Authority allowed the deduction of Export Sales against the Declaration Forms. However, the assessment was revised by the Revisional Authority, Karnal, which assessed the Export Sales made during the period of exemption (1.4.96 to 31.12.96) at 4% for the purpose of Rule 28A of the 1975 Rules. Since the exempted quantum of the assessee fixed at Rs.53.94 lakhs stood exhausted, the excess amount was ordered to be recovered by the Revisional Authority. REPORTABLE Against the said order of the Revisional Authority, the assessee appealed before the Haryana Tax Tribunal. Vide Order dated 13.1.04 the Tribunal set aside the order of the Revisional Authority which was challenged by the State of Haryana (Department) by way of civil writ petition before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh. By the impugned Order dated 26.5.06, the High Court dismissed the said writ petition in terms of its earlier judgment rendered in the case of M/s. Kagaz Print-N-Pack (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana- (G.S.T.R.No.10 of 2004) ISSUE

Explanation:- 1. For the purpose of arriving at the limit of tax exemption/deferment, the notional sales tax liability of the unit shall be taken into consideration."

(n). Rule 28B(2)(m) is not applicable to the facts of the present case. However, in order to explain the position, we have discussed, by way of analogy, Rule 28B(2)(m) of the 1975 Rules.

16. For the aforestated reasons, we hold that Export Sales were not includible in the matter of calculation of "notional tax liability" during the period in question.

19. For the aforestated reasons, the civil appeals filed by the Department are accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.

March 17, 2009.
Sudhir vs State Of Haryana

These two appeals, one by Sudhir (A-1) and the other by Jagdev (A-2), arise out of the judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh confirming the convictions and sentences passed up on them by the Sessions Judge, Bhiwani. The appellants were indicted for the murder of Prabhu Ram and for disappearance of the evidence in order to screen them from legal punishment. The Sessions Judge, Bhiwani convicted them for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34, IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for Crl.A. No. 472 of 2007 2 life and other sentences. The High Court concurred with the view of the trial court.

PW-4 then reached the spot and found Prabhu Ram's body lying in the pit. He did not go to the Police Station immediately but called his son Satbir from Mahendergarh. The first information report (F.I.R) in this regard was lodged by him at Police Station, Sadar Dadri, sometime at 2.30 p.m. He suspected that Prabhu Ram has been murdered by A-1 and A-2.

It was stated in the FIR that the previous night, i.e. on January 8, 2001, Prabhu Ram left the house at about 7.00 p.m. to collect payment of goats from Satbir son of Suraj Bhan. When Prabhu Ram reached near the house of Sher Singh, A-1 and A-2, who were coming from the opposite side pushed Prabhu Ram against the wall. Babu Lal (PW-5) who was also coming from Budhwana intervened. A-1 and A-2 were under the influence of liquor and they were saying that they would not spare him (Prabhu Ram). Due to intervention of PW-5, Prabhu Ram went towards the firni; A-

4. At about 3.30 p.m. or so on January 9, 2001, Amar Singh (PW-14) started investigation and reached the spot. The photographs of the dead body were taken; inquest report was prepared; the place of incident was inspected and a rough site plan was prepared; the blood stained earth and the brickbats were taken into possession. The dead body was sent for post-mortem examination and statements of the witnesses viz., PW-5, Sube Singh (PW-6) and Suresh (PW-7) were recorded. A-1 and A-2 were arrested on January 12, 2001; their clothes were taken possession of and sent to Forensic Science Laboratory along with stained earth and the brickbats.

14. In the result, both appeals are allowed and the judgment and order dated August 21, 2006 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana affirming the judgment of Sessions Judge, Bhiwani dated September 5, 2003 is set aside. The appellants are acquitted of the offences under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34, IPC. They shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.

(Harjit Singh Bedi) ..................
State Of Orissa And Another vs M/S Asiatic Gases Ltd

(3) The assessee was a registered dealer during the assessment year 1986-87. During that year it carried on business in manufacture and sale of medical oxygen and industrial gases by filling in cylinders. The assessee collected Rs.42,500 (approximately) from its customers during the aforesaid year for over-retention of gas cylinders. The question before us is whether the said amount was includible in the sale price as defined under Section 2(h) of the said Act. In this connection we have examined the contract between the assessee and its customers. In clause 3 of the contract it was provided that the assessee shall deliver cylinders containing medical oxygen and collect empty cylinders from the buyers after specified period of two weeks. Clause (iv) of the contract stipulated that the consumer/ buyer (customer) shall deposit by way of security certain amount which would be refunded on termination of the contract. The said clause further stated that the return of the security deposited was subject to the customer returning the cylinder in good condition. Clause (v) of the contract provided that the cylinder was the property of the assessee; that it was given on loan for 14 days free from payment of any charges; that if the customers retained the said cylinders beyond the period of 14 days then the customer was liable to pay 0.50 paise per day in respect of each cylinder for certain number of days and thereafter Rs.2 per day. In the event of loss or damage of the cylinder the customer was required to compensate the assessee such loss in terms of the schedule mentioned in the contract. In terms of the said contract as stated above the assessee collected Rs.42,500 (approx.) during the year 1986-87 as charges for over-retention from its customers.

(5) For the aforestated reasons, we set aside the impugned judgment and hereby allow the appeal with no order as to costs.
Abhimanyu Dass Jain (D) Thr. Lrs.&Anr.; vs Board Of Revenue, & Ors

By order dated 14th april, 1982, the Additional Collector (Finance), Meerut, cancelled the allotment of plot made in favour of the appellants. While doing so, the Additional Collector observed that the allottee has not appeared despite notice. It is borne out from the records that two days before the passing of the order dated 14th April, 1982, the appellants had made an application for being afforded an opportunity of hearing. However, that application was not considered and the order of cancellation was passed. When the appellants applied for setting aside the ex-parte order, their application was dismissed by the Additional Collector (Finance), Meerut, vide his order dated 25th June, 1982. Thereafter, the appellants filed revisions before the Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, and the ...2/-

Having heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the records, we are of the view that the Additional Collector (Finance), Meerut, was not justified in disposing of the petition against the order cancelling the allotment by an ex-parte order. The Additional Commissioner, Meerut, the Board of Revenue and the High Court also committed grave error by confirming order of cancellation passed by the Additional Collector. Hence, the appeal is allowed, impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Additional Collector (Finance), Meerut, who shall decide the matter afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties. The matter shall be decided expeditiously.
Nawal Kishore Verma & Anr vs State Of Bihar & Ors

9. The learned counsel for the appellants has brought to our notice the resolution dated 3.2.1981. It is in connection with grant of pay scale and other facilities to non-teaching staff of local bodies, equivalent to the Government employees. The relevant clauses are (6) and (7) which are reproduced below: -

15. Keeping in view the factum of equivalence, communications made by the State Government to the Municipalities and Municipal Corporations, the benefit extended to other diploma holders and also regard being had to the fact barring the two appellants no other diploma holders are there who are covered by the notification dated 21.11.1992, we direct the respondents to extend similar benefit that were extended to Dr. T. Ekka and Dr. P. Srivastava. If in their case there has been any apportionment of the financial burden between the State and the municipality, the same shall apply mutatis mutandis and the order to that effect shall be passed within six weeks from today and the benefits shall be given within three months therefrom.

16. Resultantly, the appeal is allowed, the orders passed by the learned single Judge as well as by the Division Bench are set aside leaving the parties to bear their respective costs.

September 12, 2013.
Manager, National Insurance Co.Ltd vs Saju P.Paul & Anr

4. The above question arises in this way. Saju P. Paul, claimant (Respondent No. 1), was a heavy vehicle driver. He was employed with Respondent No. 2 as a driver in some other vehicle. On 16.10.1993, he was travelling in a goods vehicle bearing No. KL-2A/3411 in the cabin. The goods vehicle was being driven by one Jayakumar. In that vehicle, many other persons were also travelling. At Nilackal, due to rash and negligent driving of the driver Jayakumar, the goods vehicle capsized. As a result of which the claimant suffered fracture and injuries. The claimant remained under treatment for quite some time and the injuries that he sustained in the accident rendered him permanently disabled. In the claim petition filed by him before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pathanamthitta (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), he claimed compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-. The owner and insurer were impleaded as respondent no. 2 and respondent no. 3 respectively in the claim petition.

5. The insurer filed its written statement and opposed the claimant’s claim insofar as it was concerned. The insurer set up the plea that the vehicle was a goods vehicle and the risk of the passengers travelling in the goods vehicle was not covered under the policy of insurance. It was stated in the written statement that nearly 50 unauthorised passengers were travelling at the time of accident; they were not traveling in the vehicle in pursuance of the contract of employment, such as loading and unloading nor they were travelling as the owner of the goods or the representative of the owner of the goods and hence the insurer could not be saddled with any liability.

6. The Tribunal, after recording the evidence and hearing the parties, on 23.07.2002, passed an award in favour of the claimant holding that he was entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/-. The liability of the insurer was made joint and several with the owner and driver.

8. The claimant sought review of the order dated 09.11.2010 and, as noted above, by the impugned order that review application has been allowed. While allowing the review application, the Division Bench held as under:

21. For the reasons aforementioned, this appeal is allowed.”

18. The impugned judgment is founded on misconstruction of Section

26. Appeal is allowed and disposed of as above with no order as to costs.

JANUARY 3, 2013.