L-NLProc/TathyaNyaya-and-FactLegalLlama-NyayaScrape-Datasets huggingface dataset:
Orchid Employeesæ Union & Ors vs Orchid Chemicals & Pharmaceuticals Ltd

2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court allowing the Civil Revision Petition filed by the respondent. By the common order three Civil Revision Petitions were disposed of. The Civil Revision Petitions were filed against a common order of dismissal in I.A. Nos.1489 to 1491 of 2006 in OS No. 360 of 2006 dated 13.3.2007 by the Learned District Munsif Madurantagam filed by the respondent to restrain the present appellant No.1-Union and its members from assembling within 100 meters of the boundary of its company and restraining them from obstructing the ingress and egress of vehicles carrying raw material and finished products, staff bus and other vehicles into the respondent Company and also obstructing loyal workers, foreign customers and other visitors from entering into the premises of the company and getting out of the same till the disposal of the suit.

4. The present appellants and members of 17th respondent Union (before the High Court) were restrained to assemble within 100 meters of the boundary of the factory premises of the respondent company and raise slogans or obstruct the ingress and egress of the vehicles carrying raw materials and finished products, staff bus and other vehicles into factory premises, and obstruct the loyal workers, foreign customers and other visitors from entering into the respondent company and getting out of the same till the disposal of the suit or the conciliation proceedings, whichever is earlier. It was, however, observed, that the above interim injunctions will not in any way interfere with the present appellants rights to strike or with the exercise of any other rights conferred by the Industrial Disputes Act or the Trade Unions Act. Though the workers cannot be prevented from gathering or picketing beyond the limit of 100 meters, such assembling and picketing were to be peaceful and lawful and without in any manner violating the directions given.

6. In view of the aforesaid position, we find that nothing further survives to be done in the appeal which is accordingly disposed of.
Soukat vs Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. & Ors

In a motor vehicle accident occurred in 1999, the appellant suffered bodily injuries. Pursuant to a claim petition preferred by the claimant, the Tribunal awarded Rs.3,70,500/- plus interest. Being not satisfied, the claimant preferred an appeal before the High Court for enhancement of the awarded amount. The respondent satisfied with the award did not filed any cross appeal. Curiously enough, the High Court took up the appeal for enhancement of the award but reduced the awarded amount to Rs.1,00,000/- from Rs.3,70,500/-.

accordingly, set aside. The award granted by the trial Court is restored. The payment of the awarded amount along with the interest shall be made within three months from today.

Appeal is allowed.
Kailash vs State Of M.P

2. The brief facts which are required to be stated are that on 23.07.2002, PW-2 - the mother of the deceased, when she returned from her day’s work in the field at 6 p.m., found her daughter, the deceased Radha Bai, who had returned back from the field at around 3 O’clock, inside the house with the door locked from inside. One Parmanand climbed the roof and found the deceased hanging from the roof with a Saree. The said Parmanand stated to have opened the door, cut the rope and brought the body down. PW-1 reported the matter to Aagar Police Station and thereafter, PW-9 went to the place of incident and prepared the sketch map Ext.P-8 and sent the dead body of the deceased for postmortem. He also stated to have recovered the Saree under seizure letter Ext.P-10.

3. The postmortem was conducted by PW-4, Dr. Shashank Saxena on 24.07.2002, at 3.45 p.m and in the postmortem report the doctor noted that the deceased was aged about 15 years, that below the neck there was mark of bluishness and on the ligetcher mark, there were marks of abrasion and on one side of the ligetcher mark, ecmoyosis was present. From the vagina of the body blood was found oozed out, which was frozen and spread over in the midst of the legs on the front side. On inspecting the vagina, it was found that it was reddish, congested and frozen blood was present. Laceration on the wall of the vagina of 1 cm size was also noted. The doctor in his opinion stated that the cause of the death of the deceased was due to stoppage of breathing, which was due to hanging and the injuries which were present on the body of the deceased were antemortem. The doctor stated to have collected blood stained clothes of the deceased, viscera and pubic hairs, as well as the liquid oozed out from the vagina on the role of cotton, sealed and sent the same to the Station House Officer. The postmortem report was marked as Ext.P-3. According to the doctor, the age of the deceased was 15 years based on the age written in the application form. The further opinion of the doctor was that due to hanging, no injuries could have been caused on the private organs.

4. Based on the investigation, the prosecution came to the conclusion that the deceased was raped and a case under Section 306 and 376(2)(f) IPC was registered against the appellant accused on 04.08.2002. The appellant was arrested and was put to trial. The trial Court after appreciating the evidence placed before it, acquitted the appellant from the charge under Section 306 IPC, but found him guilty for an offence punishable under Section 376(1) IPC and sentenced him as stated above.

9. Having regard to our above conclusion, we do not find any merit in the appeal. The appeal fails and the same is dismissed.

10. The appellant is on bail. The bail bond stands cancelled and he shall be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the remaining part of sentence, if any.

July 24, 2013.
Bachu Singh vs C.B.I

2. In the light of the facts that have been brought out before us by Ms. Binu Tamta, learned counsel for the appellant, particularly, that cognizance under Section 419 of the Indian Penal Code had been taken on the 12th April, 2004, after the matter had been remanded by the High Court which also made the matter outside limitation, we feel it appropriate that the matter should be remanded to the High Court. The High Court is requested to render its opinion after making a complete assessment of the facts and on the merits of the controversy. The order impugned is, accordingly, set aside.

3. The appeal is allowed to the above extent.
M/S. Srinivasa Rice Mill vs Employees State Insurance Corporation

J U D G M E N T (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 24361 of 2004) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NOs. 4777, 4775 and 4776 OF 2006 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 27297, 27330 of 2004, 1680 of 2005) S.B. SINHA, J.

Applicability of the provisions of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short "the Act") to the rice mills situate in the State of Andhra Pradesh arises for question in these matters. Appellants are owners of various rice mills situate in the State of Andhra Pradesh. The operation in these rice mills is said to be seasonal. The Act admittedly was made applicable in relation to the rice mills with effect from 1.8.2000. Prior to coming into force of the Act, inspections were carried out and allegedly it was found that in the mills more than 10 employees were employed. They were allegedly asked to comply with the provisions of the Act. Without, however, giving an opportunity to explain as to why they have not made any contribution towards insurance, by a notice dated 20th October, 2000, they were asked to show cause stating:

Suits were filed before the Employees' Insurance Court under Section 75(1)(g) of the Act. The question which inter alia was raised therein was as to whether the aforementioned notice was legal. By reason of a judgment and order dated 30.6.2003, the learned Employees' Insurance Court dismissed the applications. Aggrieved thereby and dissatisfied therewith, appeals were preferred before the High Court purported to be in terms of Section 82 of the Act. The said appeals, by reason of the impugned order, have been dismissed.

(iii) Having regard to the provisions contained in Regulation 10B of the Employees' State Insurance (General) Regulations, 1950 (for short "the Regulations") framed under the Act, it was obligatory on the part of the Inspector to disclose the details of the employees as also the wages drawn by them and the said mandatory provisions having not been complied with, the impugned notice was liable to be set aside.

We generally agree with the observations made therein.

It is, however, not necessary for us to delve deep into the matter as such a question does not arise in this case.

The appeals are allowed to the aforementioned extent. The impugned judgment is set aside. No costs.
Zahoor Ahmad Rather vs Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad

4. On 23 February 2013, an advertisement was issued by the J & K State Service Selection Board (SSSB) for filling up the posts of Technician- III in the Power Development Department for various districts including 3 Budgam, Srinagar and Ganderbal. Note 3 of the advertisement contained the following stipulations, which every applicant was required to fulfil:

5. The appellants applied for the post of Technician-III. The first appellant holds a Diploma in Electrical Engineering. Appellants 2, 3 and 4 hold a Diploma in Electronics and Communication. Appellants 5 and 6 hold a Diploma in Electrical Engineering. None of them possesses the ITI certification.

7. On 31 January 2015, the SSSB held its 116 th meeting at which, among the subjects on the agenda, was the following:

27. Leave granted.

28. This appeal is also disposed of in the same terms, conditions, observations and directions as in Civil Appeal Nos.11853-11854 of 2018 @ SLP (C) Nos 30797-30798 of 2017.

.....................................................J [UU Lalit] .....................................................J [Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud] New Delhi;

December 05, 2018
Union Of India vs R. Bhusal

Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:-

As noted supra the High Court allowed the writ petition.

In the fitness of things, the High Court should rehear the matter. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the acceptability of the plea raised by the respondent in the writ petiton. If the High Court so feels, it may permit the parties to place further materials in respect of their respective stand. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that by virtue of interim order the respondent is continuing in service. Keeping that in view, we request the High Court to explore the possibility of disposing of the writ petition within a period of four months from the date of receipt of our order.

The appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs.
Emp.State Insurance Corporation vs A.K.Abdul Samad & Anr

The facts of the case lie in a very narrow compass. The case arises out of criminal proceedings initiated by the appellant – Employees State Insurance Corporation – under Section 85 of the Act for conviction and punishment of the respondents for failure to pay contributions required by the Act. Both the respondents faced trial before the Special Court for Economic Offences, Bangalore and were found guilty and were inflicted with imprisonment till rising of the Court and fine of Rs.1000/-. According to appellant, the fine amount could not have been reduced and ought to have been Rs.5000/- as per mandate of law. Hence the Corporation preferred Revision Petitions before the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore. By the impugned judgment and order under appeal dated 09th January 2004, the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed Criminal Revision Petition Nos.1326 and 1327 of 2002 by placing reliance on judgments of Kerala High Court and Patna High Court respectively in the case of Sebastian @ Kunju v. State 1992 Cri LJ 3642 and Tetar Gope v. Ganauri Gope AIR 1968 Pat 287 as well as two Supreme Court judgments in the case of Surinder Kumar v. State (1987) 1 SCC 467 and Palaniappa Gounder v. State of Tamil Nadu (1977) 2 SCC 634. Before adverting to the submissions and the case law cited by the rival parties, it would be useful to notice relevant part of Section 85 which is as under :

which shall not be less than six months, in any other case and shall also be liable to fine of five thousand rupees:

Accordingly the appeals are allowed. The respondents shall now be required to pay a fine of Rupees five thousand. If they have already paid the earlier imposed fine of Rs.1000/-, they shall pay the balance or otherwise the entire fine of Rs.5000/- within six weeks and in default the fine shall be realised expeditiously in accordance with law by taking recourse to all the available machinery.

March 10, 2016.
Kn Aswathnarayana Setty(D) Tr.Lr.& Ors vs State Of Karnataka & Ors

E. The High Court vide judgment and order dated 19.2.2003 disposed of the said writ petition, directing the Government to decide their application in accordance with law expeditiously. In pursuance of the High Court order, the Government of Karnataka issued notice to all concerned parties and against all the parties the Hon’ble Revenue Minister passed an order dated 27.2.2004, directing to de-notify the land from acquisition.

8. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that it is not permissible to say that in case the petitioners had purchased the suit property during the pendency of the appeal filed by respondent no.3 before this Court, the petitioners are not bound by the final orders of this Court.

14. In view of the above, we do not think it necessary to examine the other issues raised in the petitions particularly, the competence of the Hon’ble Minister to deal with the matter.

15. The petitions are devoid of any merit and are accordingly dismissed. However, it is made clear that the petitioners shall be entitled to compensation as determined under the provisions of the Act 1894.
Mohd Yunus Khan vs U.P.Power Corporation Ltd.And Ors

5. Appellant again filed a school leaving certificate of 5th class with a view to show that his date of birth was 1st July, 1948. Unfortunately the medical certificate of Mohd. Yunus Khan S/o Amjad Khan was attached to the service book of the appellant as a result whereof the said confusion arose. He, however, was made to retire from 29th February, 1992.

7. An intra court appeal was preferred by respondents which, by reason of the impugned judgment, has been allowed. A review petition filed by appellant thereagainst stands dismissed.

18. Furthermore it does not appear that appellant had been given even the retrial benefits for such a long period.

19. For the reasons aforementioned, the impugned judgments cannot be sustained and they are set aside accordingly. Appellant is held to have retired in the year 2006 treating his date of birth as 1st July, 1948. Appellant would not, however, be entitled to the entire back wages as he did not work for a long time. Even he had approached this Court after a long time. There was a delay of 549 days (in respect of SLP against the main order) and 128 10 days (in respect of the SLP against the order passed in review). For a substantial period he had been paid salary, although he did not work. We direct that 50% of back wages may be paid save and except for the period during which salary has been paid to him. However, for the purpose of calculation of pensionary and other retiral dues, he shall be treated to have continued in service till the date of his superannuation and for the said purpose increments, if any earned by him, as also the revision in pay shall be taken into consideration. The appeal is allowed to the aforementioned extent with costs. Counsel's fee assessed at Rs.25,000/-.
Aneeta Hada vs M/S Godfather Travels & Tours Pvt.Ltd

JUDGMENT REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 838 OF 2008 [Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 2094 of 2007] Aneeta Hada ...Appellant Versus M/s. Godfather Travels and Tours Pvt. Ltd. ...Respondent WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 842 OF 2008 [Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 2117 of 2007] JUDGMENT S.B. SINHA, J :

The Company which is a juristic person was not arrayed as an accused.

The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence against her. Respondent had not even served any notice upon the Company in terms of Section 138 of the Act. It served a notice only on the appellant presumably on the premise that she was in charge and responsible to the company for its day to day affairs.

4. A company being a body corporate is capable of suing and being sued in its own name.

26. While saying so, I am not unmindful of views differently taken by some Benches of this Court. I would notice some of them to place on record how different Benches took different views. 24

Since, in this case, there is no evidence and no finding that the Company contravened clause (5) of the Iron and Steel Control Order, the two respondents could not be held responsible. The actual contravention was by Kamdar and Vallabhdas Thacker and any contravention by them would not fasten responsibility on the respondents. The acquittal of the respondents is, therefore, fully justified. The appeal fails and is dismissed."

41. I agree with the aforementioned decisions of the High Courts as having laid down the correct law.

42. For the reasons aforementioned, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained. It is set aside accordingly. Appeals are allowed.

With Criminal Appeal No.842 /2008 (arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 2117/2007 O R D E R In view of the difference of opinion, let the matters be placed before three-Judge Bench. The Registry is directed to place the records before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India for appropriate orders.

17. The principle "lex non cogit ad impossibilia" would not apply here, because of the language of Section 141 of the Act and the present appellant would be completely liable since the cheques signed by her were bounced.

23. In view of the above I would be of the opinion that the appeals must be dismissed.

..............................J. (V.S. SIRPURKAR) New Delhi, May 8, 2008
Des Raj & Ors vs Bhagat Ram (Dead) By Lrs. & Ors

The defendants are the appellants. The parties were co-owners. The suit properties are situate in two villages; 232 bighas and 10 biswas in village Samleu and 76 bighas in village Punjoh.

Indisputably, however, the appellants had filed two suits; one in the year 1968 and another in 1978. In the aforementioned suits, a prayer for partition and separate possession was claimed by the appellants herein in respect of 2/3rd share in the entire land situate in village Samleu. Admittedly, the 1968 suit was dismissed in 1977 and the 1978 suit was dismissed in 1984.

The First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellants herein affirming the said view holding that 'no arrangement was arrived at between the co-sharers' to the effect that the respondents would be cultivating the land on behalf of other co-sharers stating:

The parties went to trial fully knowing their respective cases. The fact that they had been co-owners was not an issue. The parties proceeded to adduce evidences in support of their respective cases. Defendants Appellants, keeping in view of the fact that they have unsuccessfully been filing suit for partition, were also not prejudiced by reason of purported wrong framing of issue. They knew that their plea for joint possession had been denied. They were, therefore, not misled. They were not prevented from adducing evidence in support of their plea.

Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963, therefore, would in a case of this nature have its role to play, if not from 1953, but at least from 1968. If that be so, the finding of the High Court that the respondent perfected his title by adverse possession and ouster cannot be said to be vitiated in law.

We, having regard to the peculiar fact obtaining in the case, are of the opinion that the plaintiff- respondent had established that he acquired title by ousting the defendants appellants by declaring hostile title in himself which was to the knowledge of his co-sharers.

We, therefore, find no infirmity in the impugned judgment. The appeal is allowed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall, however, be no order as to costs.
Pothula Rama Rao vs Pendyala Venakata Krishna Rao & Ors

2. The first respondent was elected to the Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly from 'No. 72 - Kovvur Assembly Constituency' in the election held on 24.4.2004. The appellant, a voter of the Constituency filed the said election petition for declaring the election of the returned candidate to be void, on the following four grounds :

3. The returned candidate - first respondent, contested the election petition and filed two applications - IA No. 1064 of 2004 for striking off paras 8 to 11 of the election petition, under Order VI Rule 16 CPC read with section 83 of the Act and IA No.1065 of 2004 for rejection of the election petition under Order VII Rule 11 (a) CPC read with section 83 of the Act. The High Court, after hearing, allowed the said applications by an elaborate order dated 10.2.2005. It struck off paras 8 to 11 of the election petition containing the grounds of challenge to the election and as a consequence, dismissed the election petition as not disclosing any cause of action. The said order is challenged in this appeal.

10. We, therefore, find that the High Court had rightly struck off the pleadings contained in paras 8 and 9 of the election petition. The High Court was also right in holding that paras 10 and 11 did not disclose any cause of action to proceed with the matter. There were no other grounds challenging the election. The order allowing the applications and rejecting the election petition, does not suffer from any infirmity or error. The appeals are, therefore, dismissed.