L-NLProc/TathyaNyaya-and-FactLegalLlama-NyayaScrape-Datasets huggingface dataset:
M/S. Falcon Tyres Limited vs State Of Karnataka And Others

The appellant is a public limited company and a dealer registered under the Karnataka Tax on Entry of Goods Act, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as "the Entry Tax Act"). It is engaged in the manufacture of tyres of two wheeler motor vehicles. Appellant is located in Metagalli in Mysore and Metagalli is a local area within the definition of 'Local area' in Section 2 (A) (5) of the Entry Tax Act. The main input in the manufacture of tyres is rubber which the appellant procures from the neighbouring State of Kerala.

Appellant claimed exemption from entry tax before the assessing authority on the value of rubber brought into the local area for the assessment year 1996-97 in terms of the definition of agricultural produce or horticultural produce read with Sl. No. 2 of the Second Schedule to the Entry Tax Act. The assessing authority held that rubber is not one of the agricultural produce included in Sl. No. 2 in the Second Schedule and consequently, disallowed the claim. Appellant contested the assessment order before the first appellate authority, i.e., Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals) Bangalore City Division. The first appellate authority held that rubber purchased by the appellant from outside the State of Karnataka was subjected to treatment by sulphuric acide and smoke to make it into sheets and therefore such rubber sheets do not fit the definition of agricultural produce under Section 2(A)(1) of the Entry Tax Act. The first appellate authority held that Sl. No. 2 of Second Schedule to the Act also clearly excluded rubber from the purview of agricultural produce. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

The Legislature has deliberately excluded certain items from being agricultural produce and therefore while interpreting the provisions of the present Act, the legislative intention will have to be given effect to in consonance with the definition as contained in the statute.

For the reasons stated above, we do not find any merit in this appeal and dismiss the same with costs.
Rakhi Banerjee vs Subhankar Mukherjee

2. According to the petitioner, the marriage between the parties took place and was registered on 2nd March 2005. The boubhat ceremony was held on 17th June, 2005 in West Bengal.

3. The respondent had taken the petitioner to Chennai immediately after their marriage. There was serious problem in the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent from the very inception. According to the petitioner, during her stay at Chennai, she was subjected to cruelty and torture.

4. According to the version of the petitioner, the respondent used to utter that the status and educational qualification of the petitioner did not match with the respondent and as such she should bring Rs.5 lakhs from her parents as dowry. The parents of the petitioner on learning about harassment and humiliation had rushed to Chennai on 21.10.2005. According to the petitioner, even her parents were also ill-treated, threatened and abused with filthy languages by the respondent.

5. A male child was born out of this wedlock on 17.11.2005. Even thereafter the respondent severally tortured and assaulted the petitioner both mentally and physically. Ultimately, she left her matrimonial home on 28.08.2006 and came back to her parents' house along with her small child at 3 Burdwan, West Bengal.

7. The respondent filed an anticipatory bail application before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay being Criminal Application No.393 of 2007 and on consideration of the complaint filed by the petitioner before the Burdwan police station being Crime No.759 of 2006 under sections 498-A/506 (II)/406/120-B/420 IPC, the High Court was pleased to grant conditional bail to the respondent and directed to approach the concerned Court at Burdwan, West Bengal for seeking relief as per law.

8. The respondent filed a Civil Suit No.527 of 2007 before the High Court of Judicature at Madras in which it was prayed that the petitioner be directed to pay a sum of Rs.15 lakhs as 4 damages for causing emotional pain and suffering, loss of companionship, loss of enjoyment of life, and for direct and consequential losses to the respondent.

13. On consideration of the totality of the facts and circumstances and in the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to transfer Civil Suit No.527 of 2007 titled as `Subhankar Mukherjee v. Rakhi Banerjee' pending in the High Court of Madras to the High Court of Calcutta. We order accordingly.

14. The transfer petition is accordingly allowed and disposed of.

November 17, 2008.
Tilak Raj vs State Of Himachal Pradesh

Brief facts of the case are stated hereunder to appreciate the rival legal contentions urged on behalf of the parties:

He further vehemently contended that the High Court has failed to appreciate certain facts, namely, the age of the prosecutrix at the time of incident was about 40 years i.e., approximately 10 years more than that of the appellant. Further, she was a government servant at the time of incident and in number of cases she was appointed as protection officer under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Further, the prosecutrix was in relationship with the appellant for about two years prior to the alleged incident. All the aforesaid facts render the prosecution version completely unbelievable that the appellant established physical intimacy with the prosecutrix on the false pretext of marriage. Therefore, the impugned judgment and order is liable to be set aside by this Court.

24. For the reasons stated supra, this appeal is allowed and we set aside the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the High Court against the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 417 and 506 part I of IPC. The appellant is acquitted of all the charges levelled against him.

……………………………………………………CJI.

[T.S. THAKUR] …………………………………………………………J. [V. GOPALA GOWDA] New Delhi, January 6, 2016

[2] (1970) 2 SCC 740
Nitin Bandopant Salagre vs The State Election Commission

3. The general elections for electing councillor for Bombay Municipal Corporation were held in February, 2017. One Mrs. Kesharben Murji Patel was declared elected on 23.02.2017 as councillor from Ward No.76. Ward No.76 was reserved for backward class of citizens. Mrs. Kesharben Murji Patel had wrongly claimed to be a member of backward class citizen. The appellant filed a complaint before District Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee and has also filed Election Petition No.52 of 2017 before Chief Judge of Small Causes Court, Mumbai under Section 33 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1888) challenging the election of Mrs. Kesharben Murji Patel. The District Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee by its order dated 19.08.2017 invalidated the caste certificate of Mrs. Kesharben Murji Patel. Writ Petition No. 181 of 2018 was filed by Mrs. Kesharben Murji Patel seeking direction to the Corporation not to disqualify her. The writ petition No. 181 of 2018 was dismissed on 02.04.2019 against which special leave petition (C) No.8946 of 2019 was filed, which too was dismissed on 24.04.2019. Mrs. Kesharben Murji Patel was 3 disqualified by order dated 05.04.2019 of the Corporation. On account of disqualification of Mrs. Kesharben Murji Patel from Ward No.76, a casual vacancy arose in the said ward. The appellant claimed to have secured second highest number of votes from Ward No.76, hence he claimed that he ought to have been declared by Chief Judge of Small Causes Court as having elected from Ward No.76. The State Election Commission, Maharashtra issued a notification dated 09.05.2019 notifying the byelection for Ward No.76 of the Corporation to fill up casual vacancy arising under Section 9 of the Act, 1988. The Writ Petition (C) No.1577 of 2019 has been filed by the appellant in the Bombay High Court praying for following reliefs:-

12. In the facts of the present case, there is no dispute that election petitions challenging the elections of the returned candidates were filed by the appellants before the Chief Judge, Small Causes Court prior to the invalidation of caste certificate by District Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee and further in the election petition, the prayer has been made by the appellant that he be also declared elected. Prayer (c) of the election petition is as follows:-

39. In the result, the appeals are allowed, impugned judgment of the High Court is set side, the State Election Commission may take a fresh decision regarding holding of by-election of the wards in question keeping in view the observations and conclusions as made above.
State Of Himachal Pradesh vs Paras Ram And Ors.

3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant Smt. Manjit Kaur is a resident of Village Abada Barana, Distt. Una, H.P. She is a house wife. On 30.6.2003 at about 5.45 p.m. she and her sister-in-law Nirmala Devi were watching television in their house and their children were playing outside, while her husband Gurdial Singh had gone to Kuthar to bring medicines. In the meantime daughter of her sister-in-law aged about 13 years named Poonam came there and told that some persons were uprooting creepers from their field. On this they both came out and saw that the above named accused were doing the same and on seeing the complainant and Page 0268 her sister-in-law the accused came towards the house of the complainant and challenged them that they would set their house on fire. The accused Balbir Singh, Baldev Singh, Jai Gopal and Radhey Shayam were carrying 'Mashals' in their hands and with the help of those Mashals they lit their thatched house on fire from three sides. When the complainant and her sister-in-law tried to take out their articles from the house, the accused threatened them to throw in the fire. On this, the complainant got frightened and she along with her sister-in-law and children rushed towards Kuthar Kalan while raising cries. On listening their cries Santosh Kumari W/o Jog Raj and Yash Pal S/o Bihari Lal, both resident of Kuthar Kalan, reached at the spot. Thereafter the complainant went to Kuthar Kalan and told about this incident to her husband who informed the fire brigade and police The police reached at the spot and recorded statement of complainant Ex.PW-1/A under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'Cr.P.C.') upon which FIR Ex.PW-12/A was recorded against the accused. During investigation the police prepared the photographs of the spot and obtained demarcation of the land over which the house in question was situated. After completion of investigation charge sheet was filed and the accused persons faced trial. Thirteen persons were examined as witnesses. PWs. 1 and 4 apart from others were stated to be eye-witnesses. The High Court found that there was some delay in lodging the FIR and though large number of people were claimed to have gathered at the spot, the witnesses could not have seen the accused persons. The High Court also found that there was some dispute between the parties and, therefore, the prosecution version was suspect. Accordingly, the accused persons were acquitted.

Page 0270

10. In view of the aforesaid legal position, the impugned judgment of the High Court is unsustainable and is set aside. We grant leave to the State to file the appeal. The High Court shall entertain the appeal and after formal notice to the respondents hear the appeal and dispose of it in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any observation made in the present appeal. The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated.
Harijan Mangri Siddakka And Ors vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. And Anr

2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court disposing of an appeal filed under Section 30(1) of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1928 (in short the `Act'). The appellants lodged claim petition claiming compensation in respect of certain persons who had lost their lives. According to the appellants the deceased persons were employed as workmen/labourer in a tractor and trailor combination which was the subject matter of insurance. When the trailor was being loaded with mud from the quarry, huge quantity of mud had collapsed from the quarry smothering the workmen to death. The Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation (in short the `Commissioner') held that the accident had taken place during and in the course of the employment and since the vehicle has been used for purposes of loading, the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. were liable to indemnify the award made. The Insurer challenged the correctness of the award taking the stand that the liability of the insurer arises on account of death on a bodily injury arising out of the use of the vehicle and in the present case the admitted circumstances indicate that there was no proximate connection between the use of the vehicle and the actual cause of death which was overlooked by the Commissioner. Stand of the appellants was that the insurer is not correct in submitting that there was no use of the vehicle at the time of 2 accident. It was pointed out that though the death occurred at a place away from the vehicle or the fact that the mud which was being loaded on to the trailor from the quarry had killed the workmen, is immaterial since the policy of the Insurance is intended to cover the risk of workmen employed in the vehicle. The High Court found that there was no actual use of the vehicle and therefore there was no casual connection between the cause of death and the use of the vehicle.

6. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. Appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. No costs.
Anil vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd..

Dr D Y CHANDRACHUD, J 1 The Punjab and Haryana High Court by its judgment dated 6 September 2010 reversed a decision of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rewari dated 6 February 2001. The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 21,38,000/- together with interest at the rate of 9 percent per annum to the appellants. The High Court reversed the award on the ground that the appellants had set up a Digitally signed by SATISH KUMAR YADAV Date: 2018.01.19 17:03:29 TLT Reason: 2 “brazenly false case…to stage manage a fake involvement of the insured’s vehicle”.

2 The deceased was a person by the name of Ram Kanwar. His brother Satbir Singh was the owner of a tractor. The case of the claimants which was sought to be established through PW1 Bhawani Shankar was that on 12 January 1995 he together with two others namely Rohtas and Ghanshyam (PW2) were proceeding in a tractor driven by Dharampal from Sehjahpur to village Jat Behrod. Ram Kanwar signalled for the tractor to stop. However, the tractor was driven in a rash and negligent manner, as a result of which, it ran over Ram Kanwar. Besides adverting to the evidence of PW1 and PW2, the alleged eye-witnesses, the Tribunal adverted to the FIR lodged against Ram Kanwar under Sections 279/304-A of the Penal Code. In holding that the accident had occurred and that it was caused due to the negligence of the tractor driver, the Tribunal observed thus:

5 For the above reasons, we find no merit in the appeals. The appeals are accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

............................................CJI [DIPAK MISRA] …….........................................J [A M KHANWILKAR] ….............................................J [Dr D Y CHANDRACHUD] New Delhi January 19, 2018.
Prakash vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Hiralal (PW-2), and Mangilal (PW-3) are witnesses to the second occurrence whereas Laxminarayan (PW-5) and Rameshchandra (PW-6) are witnesses to both the occurrences. Apart from the said witnesses, the prosecution relied also upon the evidence of Bhimsingh (PW-8).

The deceased, Ramprasad was a teacher. PWs-5 and 6 were categorical in their statements that in the first occurrence, the deceased had hit Badrilal with stick twice. They were separated by some of the prosecution witnesses. At about 5 O' clock, when the witnesses were returning from the Hat, they saw Badrilal, Dinesh and two-three other persons chasing the deceased. The witnesses tried to pacify them. They ran to save him, but Prakash and Badrlal jumpged a hedge and came near the deceased. Appellant is said to have hit the deceased in his leg, whereafter Badrilal had assaulted him on the head from behind. They thereafter fled away. PWs-2 and 3 also testified to the aforementioned effect. PW-2 was the first person to bring water from a shop and gave it to the deceased after he had fallen down.

We, therefore, are of the opinion that the circumstances existing herein categorically establish formation of common intention amongst the accused.

The appeal is, therefore, dismissed, particularly when Appellant has not been convicted of an offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, but under Section 304 Part-I of IPC.
State Of Orissa vs Durga Charan Routray

2. The appellant entrusted the construction of Earth Dam of Kuanaria Irrigation Project (balance work) to the respondent. The contract was entered at Puri. The work was executed in Puri District. Certain disputes arose and they were referred to arbitration. The Arbitrator made an Award dated 7.3.2003 for Rs.34.81 lakhs and interest.

3. The appellant filed an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, ('Act' for short) on 25.6.2003 in the Court of District Judge, Khurda at Bhubaneswar. Learned District Judge, by order dated 21.6.2004, held that the Court at Khurda District did not have jurisdiction and directed the return of the application to the appellant for being presented to proper Court. The appellant filed an appeal against the said order dated 21.6.2004.

justice would be served if the said order is amended by directing the appellant to deposit the said amount in the District Court, Puri. The direction for withdrawal by the respondent is set aside.

8. We, therefore dispose of the appeal as follows:

(iii) We request the District Judge, Puri to decide the application under Section 34 of the Act expeditiously.
Biswajit Sukul vs Deo Chand Sarda

3) In   order   to   appreciate   the   short   controversy involved in the appeal, it is necessary to set out the relevant facts hereinbelow.

5) The   appellant   (plaintiff)   claiming   to   be   the landlord   of   a   shop   situated   in   holding   No.257 (old)/58 (new) at Tulapatty Silchar Town (hereinafter referred to as  “suit premises”) filed a Civil Title Suit No.189/1977   against   one   Deo   Chand   Sarda (Respondent   No.1)   in   the   Court   of   Munsiff   No.1 Cachar   at   Silchar.   The   suit   was   filed   for   claiming arrears of rent and eviction from the suit premises. 2

6) According to the appellant (plaintiff), respondent No.1 was the appellant’s tenant on a monthly rent.  It was averred that respondent No.1 paid some money in   advance   to   the   appellant,   which   the   appellant adjusted   against   the  rent  ending   July   1977. It was averred that  the respondent thereafter failed to pay rent   from   August   1977   despite   repeated   demands and hence the suit was filed to claim arrears of rent and   the   eviction   of   the   respondent   as   defaulter   in payment   of   rent.     The   suit   was   filed   under   the provisions   of   Assam   Urban   Areas   Rent   Control   Act (for   Short   ‘The   Act’).   Defendant   No.2   got   himself impleaded   in   the   suit   claiming   to   be   the   necessary party.   It was permitted.   The respondents filed the written statement and denied the material averments of the plaint.

18) As   mentioned   above,   the   defendants   though suffered the adverse finding on first part of issue No. 4 but did not file any cross objection questioning its legality. In the light of these admitted facts arising in the   case,   the   First   Appellate   Court   had   no jurisdiction to examine the legality and correctness of the finding on first part of issue No. 4 in plaintiff's appeal and reverse it against the plaintiff.

22) We,   however,   make   it   clear,   that   since   the defendants   did   not   file   any   cross   objection   in   the appeal under Order 41 Rule 22 of the Code, they are not allowed to file the cross objection at such belated stage taking advantage of the remand of the appeal to the First Appellate Court by this Court.

23) In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal succeeds and is accordingly allowed. Impugned order and the judgment of the First Appellate Court are set aside.   The   case   is   remanded   to   the   First   appellate Court for deciding the plaintiff's first appeal afresh in accordance with law on merits as mentioned above. 12

24) We,   however,   make   it   clear   that   we   have   not applied   our   mind   to   the   merits   of   the   controversy having formed an opinion to remand the case for the reasons   mentioned   above   and   hence   the   First Appellate   Court   would   decide   the   plaintiff's   first appeal on merits without being influenced by any of our observations. Let the appeal be decided within six months.

September 25, 2018  13
Madan Lal & Anr vs State Of U.P

1. These two appeals are directed against the judgment of a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court allowing the appeals filed by the State. The accused persons faced trial for alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 304-B, 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short `IPC') and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (in short `D.P.Act'). Learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Moradabad (U.P.), directed acquittal of the present appellants holding that the prosecution version has not been established, and that there was no credible evidence of the deceased Asha having been caused death due to throttling. The trial Court held that the deceased was suffering from epilepsy and the possibility of her death on account of fit of epilepsy cannot be ruled out. State questioned the acquittal on several grounds. It was pointed out that there was direct evidence of demand of dowry and the Doctor's evidence clearly ruled out the possibility of the injuries sustained by the deceased having been caused due to epileptic fit. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial Court directing acquittal was set aside qua accused persons Madan Lal and Hoshiary (accused Nos. 2 and 3) appellants in Criminal Appeal No.1701 of 2005 and Ram Chander the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.1042/2006 who was accused No.1. However, the High Court did not interfere with that part of the judgment of the trial Court by which (accused No.4) Mithlesh was acquitted.

The appeals are allowed to the aforesaid extent.