L-NLProc/TathyaNyaya-and-FactLegalLlama-NyayaScrape-Datasets huggingface dataset:
Nikhil Kumar vs Rupali Kumar

2. The appellant and respondent have filed the petition under Section 13- B(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the Family Court (Principal Judge, Family Court, Tiz Hazari District Courts), Delhi. The parties were married on 07.02.2011 according to the customary rights. It is submitted that they have not been able to workout their marriage as husband and wife since day one. For the last around five years, most of the time they have been living separately and their marriage reached a breaking point more than a year back. Both the parties, after giving serious thought on the entire consequences of their decision, have taken a conscious decision to part and accordingly they have filed a petition before the Family Court for divorce on mutual consent on 29.03.2016. The Family Court granted the First Motion on 01.04.2016 and now, the matter is posted in the month of October, 2016.

3. The respondent has made a travel plan to move to New York on 29.04.2016 seeking a job and resettlement in life, after a long period of traumatic experiences of her married life as stated in the affidavit.

7. The respondent is scheduled to leave the country by 29.04.2016 and it is not possible for her to return to India within six months or in the near future, it is submitted.

9. In the above circumstances, HMA No.272 of 2016 filed on 29.03.2016 before the Ld. Principal Judge, Family Courts, Tiz Hazari District Courts, Delhi under Section 13-B(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is allowed. The statutory period of six months is waived and the marriage between the parties is dissolved.

11. The appeal is allowed as above. No order as to costs.

…....................J (KURIAN JOSEPH) …....................J (ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN) NEW DELHI APRIL 27, 2016
Sunita Rani & Ors vs Sri Chand & Ors

1. The respondents (Landlord) instituted proceedings for eviction of the appellants (Tenant) from three different premises let out to them at different times. One of the proceedings was in respect of a go-down let out to the appellants at the monthly rental of Rs.50/-. The other was in regard to a shop with the monthly rental of Rs.35/- and the third was for a kothari on the monthly rental of Rs.15/-.

3. Against the order passed by the Prescribed Authority the respondents preferred appeals before the Additional Judge, Saharanpur. The appellate authority allowed the appeal relating to the go-down and ordered its release/ eviction of the appellants by judgment and order dated 30 May, 1989. By the same judgment, however, it rejected the respondents' appeals in regard to the other two premises, namely, the shop and the kothari.

4. The respondents filed two writ petitions before the Allahabad High Court challenging the orders rejecting his eviction/release petitions in respect of the shop and the kothari. The appellants too approached the High Court in a writ petition against the judgment of the appellate authority in so far as it allowed release of the go- down in favour of the respondents. The High Court, like the two courts below, heard all the three writ petitions together and disposed them of by a common judgment and order dated 19 August, 2008. The High Court held that the judgment and order passed by the lower appellate court was eminently just and in accordance with law. It therefore, dismissed all the three writ petitions.

(emphasis added)

11. For the reasons stated above we find the High Court order enhancing the rent of the shop and the kothari from Rs.50/- to Rs.500/- pm quite unsustainable. To that extent, the High Court order is set aside.

12. The appeals are allowed to the limited extent, but without any order as to costs.
Sapna vs United Insurance Co.Ltd.& Anr

2. What should be the fair and adequate compensation for permanent disability suffered by a 12 years' girl in an accident involving a motor vehicle is the question involved herein. On 3.9.1999, at about 10.00 am, Sapna, while going to a temple, was hit by a `jeep', used as a taxi. She 2 was dragged along with the jeep to a distance of about 15-20 feet. She suffered compound fracture of left knee and dislocation of Patellae/bone of left knee and skin and muscles above and below came out and veins got cut and knee got completely damaged and bones of left leg became bare due to tearing of skin and flesh and left leg bent at 90 degree at knee as a result whereof she has become crippled and completely disabled to walk. The skin of right leg from thigh to ankle was also peeled off resulting in serious wounds.

14. It has not been disputed that future treatment for the appellant would be necessary. If future treatment is necessary, some provision should be made therefor. In absence of any clear cut estimate, we are inclined to award a further sum of Rs.75,000/- under the said head. She may require another operation. She may require to be provided with an artificial limb. We, direct accordingly.

16. Out of the aforementioned amount, if not already distributed, the Tribunal shall invest a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- in a fixed deposit till she attains majority. As and when any amount is required for her treatment or for other expenditure, the sum may be released. The learned Tribunal, however, shall be at liberty to pass such other order or orders if and when found necessary therefor.

17. The appeal is allowed to the aforementioned extent with no order as to costs.
Vijay Singh vs State Of U.P.& Ors

2. This appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 19.7.2011 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in CMWP No. 39609 of 2011, wherein the case of the appellant against the order of punishment in disciplinary proceedings has been rejected as the revisional authority had held that against the order passed by the disciplinary authority, the revision was not maintainable. The High Court held that on such facts the writ petition was not worth entertaining.

3. The instant case is an eye opener as it reveals as to what extent the superior statutory authorities decide the fate of their subordinates in a casual and cavalier manner without application of mind and then expect them to maintain complete discipline merely being members of the disciplined forces. The facts necessary to decide this appeal are as under:

E. Aggrieved, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Deputy Inspector General of Police on 20.8.2010 raising all the issues including that it was not necessary to find out the past criminal history of the accused in bailable offence and the punishment so imposed was not permissible under the U.P. Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as b�Rules 1991b�). The appeal stood rejected by the appellate authority vide order dated 29.10.2010. F. Being aggrieved, appellant preferred a revision before the Additional Director General of Police which was dismissed vide order dated 29.3.2011 observing that withholding integrity certificate did not fall within the ambit of the Rules 1991. Therefore, the said revision could not be dealt with on merit and thus was not maintainable.

G. Aggrieved, appellant filed a Writ Petition which was dismissed by the High Court by the impugned judgment and order dated 19.7.2011. Hence, this appeal.

Thus, the order of punishment being outside the purview of the statutory rules is a nullity and cannot be enforced against the appellant.

Thus, in view of the above, the punishment order is not maintainable in the eyes of law.

17. In the result, appeal succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 8.7.2010 withholding integrity certificate for the year 2010 and all subsequent orders in this regard are quashed. Respondents are directed to consider the case of the appellant for all consequential benefits including promotion etc., if any, afresh taking into consideration the service record of the appellant in accordance with law.
Randhir Singh vs State Of Punjab & Ors

These appeals by special leave arise out of land acquisition proceedings by which large area of land, namely, in 4 villages Gopalpur, Nusi, Nangli Viran and Lidhran was sought to be acquired in Jalandhar in the State of Punjab by a Notification dated 20th of May, 1983 under Section 4 of the Land 3 Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") for the public purpose of setting up of a Government Engineering College. The Land Acquisition Collector, by an award dated 7th of March, 1986, assessed the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 53,560/- per acre in respect of the Chahi land, Barani land at the rate of Rs. 28,500/- per acre and Banjar kadim at the rate of Rs. 14,250/- per acre. The appellants, who are the land owners/claimants, were dissatisfied with the award and filed reference cases under Section 18 of the Act. The Reference Court determined the market value of the acquired land up to a depth of 100 karams situated on the G.T. Road at the rate of Rs. 1,60,000/- per acre and the market value of the remaining land was determined at the rate of Rs. 1,10,000/- per acre. With this determination, the Reference Court also held that the land owners/claimants were also entitled to other statutory benefits as admissible to them in law.

In this view of the matter, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order in these appeals. Accordingly, these appeals are dismissed with a direction that the compensation awarded by the High Court shall be paid to the claimants/appellants within two months from this date.

Accordingly, the appeals of the claimants/appellants are dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.

We find from the record that at the time of issuance of notice in the Special Leave Petition Nos. 2769-2798 of 2008 preferred by the State of Punjab, the State of Punjab was directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 20,000/- as costs and such cost is now lying with the 9 Registry of this Court. Since we have condoned the delay in filing the appeals of the State of Punjab, we direct that the claimants/respondents should be allowed to withdraw the costs deposited with the Registry of this Court.

With the aforesaid directions, these appeals stand dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.

Interim order, if any, shall stand vacated.
South Eastern Coalfields Ltd vs Commissioner, Customs & Central ...

The facts of the case are that the Central Electrical and Mechanical Workshop at Korba was established by the appellant, M/s. South Eastern Coalfields Ltd., at Korba in 1967 to facilitate repair of all mining machinery and equipment used in the adjacent coal mines and other collieries. The Central Government declared this workshop as a mine under the provisions of Section 82 of the Mines Act, 1952 under certificate dated 1.5.1969.

The Commissioner by his order dated 22.6.1999 held against the appellant and ordered the payment of duty amounting to Rs.31,59,704/- as mentioned in the show cause notice and also directed recovery of interest and penalty for contravention of various rules.

The appellant filed an appeal before the CEGAT, which by order dated 30.11.2000 held that the goods produced by the appellants, were dutiable and the appellant would not entitled to the exemption contained in the Notification No.63/95-CE. The Tribunal confirmed the demand of excise duty under the order of the Commissioner but set aside the penalty imposed on the appellants. Aggrieved, this appeal has been filed in this Court.

In the present case the Tribunal rejected the assessee's claim for exemption on the ground that since the mine was registered under the Factories Act, it cannot have the benefit of exemption in the Notification No.63/95-CE since as per Section 2(m) of the Factories Act a factory means any premises including the precincts thereof but does not include a mine subject to the operation of the Mines Act, 1952.

For the reasons given above the appeal is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. No costs.

Civil Appeal Nos. 1968-1971/2003 & 8403-8404/2003 In view of the decision in Civil Appeal No. 2408/2001, these appeals are allowed. The impugned orders are set aside. No costs.
State Of A.P vs M. Durga Prasad & Ors

2. Aggrieved by their acquittal the appellant has preferred this appeal with the leave of the Court.

3. According to the prosecution accused No.3, T. Hanumantha Rao- respondent No.6 herein was a contractor doing civil contracts. He entered into a conspiracy with E. Subhash and Sheik Bhasha, who later on were declared as approver and examined as PW.1 and PW.2, to cheat the Income Tax Department and in furtherance of their plan in collusion with accused No.1, G. Venkateswarlu-respondent No.5 herein who was working as Income Tax Officer, filed bogus Income Tax Returns in the names of fictitious persons and claimed Income Tax refunds. Case of the prosecution further is that accused No.6, K. Pulla Reddy and accused No.8, P. Siva Rama Prasad that is respondent No.3 and respondent No.2 herein respectively introduced accused No.3, T. Hanumantha Rao to 3 open Savings Bank Accounts with Syndicate Bank, Union Bank of India, State Bank of India and Vysya Bank and thus facilitated accused No.3 to impersonate these fictitious persons to encash the refund orders. Further case of the prosecution is that accused No.2, M. Durga Prasad and accused No.4, M. Chakrapani - respondent No.1 and respondent 4 herein respectively dishonestly helped accused No.3 in getting credited the amounts in the names of the different fictitious persons and thus facilitated him to withdraw the funds on various dates from the Syndicate Bank. Prosecution has further alleged that accused No.1, G. Venkateswarlu who was working as Income Tax Officer knowing fully well that the Income Tax Returns were filed in the names of the fictitious persons, dishonestly and fraudulently processed and sanctioned the refund to a tune of Rs.3,92,552/-.

11. In the result, we do not find any merit in the appeal and it is dismissed accordingly.
S. Anand vs Vasumathi Chandrasekar

However, the appellant filed an application for cross-examination of the complainant herself which was rejected. A revision application was filed thereagainst in the Court of the Sessions Judge.

In the said revision application, no order of stay was passed. Whereas the appellant had continuously remained present before the Trial Judge, the complainant remained absent.

15. Similar contention of the complainant that the advocate is an agent of his client and it is his duty to appear on behalf of his client, in our opinion, is beyond the scope of this appeal.

16. We, therefore, although do not approve the manner in which the appeal has been disposed of by the High Court, are of the opinion that it is not a fit case where we should exercise our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.

17. The appeal is dismissed with the aforementioned observations.
Vimalchandra D.Desai & Anr vs Pune Municipal Corpn. & Ors

The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra, allowed the complaint and awarded compensation of Rupees four lakhs together with interest thereon at the rate of nine per cent per annum from the date of filing of the complaint, i.e., 20th April, 2000, till realisation. Against the said order, when the matter was taken in appeal, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission [for short, "National Commission"] enhanced the compensation to Rs.6,54,2000/- and after taking note of the fact that Respondent No.1, Pune Municipal Corporation has already paid Rs.50,000/-, directed that Aundh Sports Club, Respondent No.4 herein, shall pay the remaining amount of Rs.6,04,000/- within four weeks. The National Commission further directed ...2/-

that in case Respondent No.4 fails to pay the amount, Respondent Nos.5-8 herein shall be jointly and severely liable to pay the amount with the rider that in the event of failure of respondents to pay the amount within four weeks, the appellants shall be entitled to interest at the rate of nine per cent per annum.

Feeling dis-satisfied with the order of the National Commission, the complainants have preferred this appeal by special leave.

In view of the above, we hold that the appellants are entitled to a sum of Rs.7,92,000/- by way of compensation and after deducting Rs.50,000/- already paid by Respondent No.1, a sum of Rs.7,42,000/- is payable to them. We are further of the view that the National Commission was not justified in not awarding interest to the appellants with effect from the date of filing of the complaint.

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in-part. It is held that the enhanced compensation payable in terms of the order of the National Commission is Rs.7,92,000/- and not Rs.6,54,000/-. After deducting Rs.50,000/- paid by the Pune Municipal Corporation, Respondent Nos.4 to 8 are directed to pay to the appellants a sum of Rs.7,42,000/- together with interest thereon at the rate of nine per cent per annum from the date ...3/-
Union Of India vs M/S.Krafters Engineering & Leasing ...

2) Brief facts:

18. At the outset it should be noticed that Engineers-De-

Space-Age and Madnani are inapplicable for yet another reason. In Engineers-De-Space-Age and Madnani the arbitrator had awarded interest for the pendente lite period.

We also clarify that the Arbitration Act, 1940 does not contain any specific provision relating to the power of arbitrator to award interest. However, in the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, there is a specific provision with regard to award of interest by the arbitrator. The bar under clause 1.15 is absolute and interest cannot be awarded without rewriting the contract.

16) For the aforesaid reasons, we set aside the award of the arbitrator granting interest in respect of the amount payable to the contractor under the contract as well as the order of the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court confirming the same.

17) Consequently, the appeal is allowed to the extent pointed out above with no order as to costs.

JULY 12, 2011.
Saroj Kumar vs U.O.I & Ors

Succinctly stated, the facts are that the appellant Saroj Kumar was selected through Civil Service Examination, 1985, and was allotted Indian Defence Accounts Service (for short “IDAS”). On 29.1.1996 he was promoted as Junior Administrative Officer with effect from 12.1.1996. He was promoted in the pay scale of Rs.14200-18200 vide order dated 10.11.2000 and was given Selection Grade with effect from 5.5.2000. Later, on 14.6.2004 he was posted as Joint Controller of Defence Accounts, Jabalpur (M.P.). A DPC was convened for promotion in the Senior Administrative Grade on 10.5.2006. It is pleaded by the appellant that to his utter shock, ignoring him, juniors to him were promoted.

As such, in the second round the appellant filed OA No. 490 of 2010 before the Tribunal challenging the rejection of the representation by the respondent authorities. The Tribunal was pleased to allow the OA vide order dated 27.4.2010 and set aside the order dated 22.1.2010 and once again remitted the matter back to the respondent authorities for reconsideration of the representation of the appellant. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent authorities filed Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 8357 of 2011 before Allahabad High Court, which was dismissed on 21.2.2011. While dismissing the writ petition, the High Court observed that alleged downgrading of the ACRs of the appellant by the then Reviewing Authority (against the grading recorded by the Assessing Officer and the Reporting Officer) was without any material available on record. The High Court further observed that the decision of the competent authority is simply reiteration of downgrading of the three entries by the Reviewing Officer, by observing that the Reviewing Officer has downgraded the entries consciously based on work parameters. It further observed that if the complaints were there, the same should have been mentioned while downgrading the entries. The respondents, vide order dated 23.3.2011, after considering the matter afresh, again found no substance in the representation and rejected the same.

Therefore, we do not find any error in the impugned order passed by the High Court.

Accordingly the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

August 18, 2015
State Of West Bengal & Ors vs Samar Kumar Sarkar

3) The facts in nutshell are, the respondent before the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal is the petitioner in this petition. The respondent in the present petition filed O.A. No. 912 of 2003 under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, before the West Bengal State 1 Administrative Tribunal, inter alia requesting the Tribunal to direct respondents therein to appoint the applicant to the post of Group `D' in the office of District Land and Land Reforms Officer, Howrah, on the ground that he had served as Tahsil Mohurrior under the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer, Shyampur. After service of notice on the respondents, several adjournments were granted by the Tribunal to the parties to complete the pleadings. The application thereafter was posted before the Tribunal on 1.2.2005. The Tribunal had granted permission to the respondents therein to file its reply, if any, within three weeks. Aggrieved by the order so passed, the applicant had moved a petition before the High Court at Calcutta under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, assailing the correctness or otherwise of the order dated 1.2.2005 and also praying for the very same reliefs that was sought in the application. The Court by its order dated 7.3.2005 had rejected the writ petition on the ground that the petition filed is premature.

5) The respondent herein who was applicant before the Tribunal has filed one more writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution 2 in the High Court at Calcutta, wherein apart from others has requested the court for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents in the said application to give appointment to him with effect from 6.3.2000 and to release arrears of salary and other benefits. The writ petition No. 649 of 2007 was heard by the High Court on 7.7.2008. The High Court by its order dated 7.7.2008, directed the Registry of the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal to transmit all the original records of O.A. No. 912 of 2003 to the High Court for taking a decision in the matter. The findings and the observations of the High Court in its order dated 7.7.2008 are as under:

227 had directed the Tribunal to dispose of the matter expeditiously, instead of transferring the matter to itself.

22)In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The High Court is requested to return all the documents pertaining to O.A.No. 912 of 2003 to the Administrative Tribunal forthwith. The Tribunal is directed to consider the matter promptly and dispose of the same within six months from the date of the pronouncement of this judgment. No order as to costs.
State Of Karnataka & Ors vs Ameerbi & Ors

The Scheme was floated by the Central Government with certain objects. The staff pattern at the project level has been laid down in the Scheme itself. What would be meant by sanctioned post is evident from paragraph 3.1.18 of the Scheme as noticed hereinbefore. Indisputably Anganwadi workers and helpers were not to be appointed on a pay scale. They are to be paid honorarium. The amount of honorarium has since been increased and just at present is as under:

We are not oblivious of the fact that their presence in their respective villages is extremely important. They are supposed to make significant contribution to the society. They, we understand, are required to carry a large number of activities, primarily amongst them being the welfare of the children.

Keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the application. The appeals are allowed accordingly. No costs.