L-NLProc/TathyaNyaya-and-FactLegalLlama-NyayaScrape-Datasets huggingface dataset:
Ram Chandra Singh vs Rajaram

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the respondent Nos.1 to 5 DEEPAK GUGLANI Date: 2018.08.14 11:58:16 IST Reason: filed a motor accident claim before the Motor Accident Claims 2 Tribunal, Firozabad, bearing M.A.C.P. No.169 of 2012, consequent to the death of Sanoj Kumar on account of motor accident which occurred on 10th May, 2012 at 6.30 A.M., when he was going for his morning walk towards Mustafabad Chauraha. At that time, the driver of Bolero loader bearing registration No.UP-71/0084 while driving the vehicle in a high speed and in rash and negligent manner, hit the deceased from behind. The Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition and awarded compensation amount of Rs.6,27,000/-, but absolved the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. (for short, “the insurer”) on the finding that the offending vehicle was driven by one Shivgyani (respondent No.6) who did not have a valid driving licence. The Tribunal, however, directed the insurer to pay the compensation amount as determined in terms of the award dated 24th August, 2016, with liberty to recover the same from the vehicle owner (appellant herein) and the driver (respondent No.6) jointly and severally.

14. We make it clear that the High Court shall not examine any other issue in the remand proceedings. For, the compensation amount, as determined and directed by the Tribunal, has already been made over to the claimants.

15. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and restore the First Appeal From Order No.3290 of 2016, to the file of the High Court to its original number for being 10 decided afresh, on the limited question of whether the liability to pay compensation amount, is cast upon the appellant (owner of the vehicle) or respondent No.7 (insurer). That aspect be decided on its own merits in accordance with law. We may not be understood to have expressed any opinion, either way, on the efficacy of the pleadings and the evidence produced by the parties adverted to in this judgment or in any other evidence on record. All questions in that behalf are left open.

16. The appeal is allowed in the aforementioned terms with no order as to costs.

.………………………….CJI.

August 14, 2018.
Nagendrappa Natikar vs Neelamma

3. The marriage between the petitioner (husband) and respondent (wife) took place on 24.5.1987. Alleging that the petitioner is not maintaining his wife, respondent filed an application under Section 125 CrPC for grant of maintenance before the 1st Additional JMFC at Gulbarga, being Misc. Case No. 234 of 1992. While the matter was pending, an application was preferred by the parties under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC on 3.9.1994 stating that the parties had arrived at a compromise, by which the respondent had agreed to receive an amount of Rs.8,000/- towards permanent alimony and that she would not make any claim for maintenance in future or enhancement of maintenance. Consent letter dated 30.3.1990, which is in Kannada, the English translation of the same reads as follow:

5. We notice, while the application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. was pending, respondent wife filed O.S. No. 10 of 2005 before the Family Court, Gulbarga under Section 18 of the Act claiming maintenance at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per month. The claim was resisted by the petitioner husband contending that, in view of the compromise reached between the parties in Misc. Case No. 234 of 1992 filed under Section 125 CrPC, respondent could not claim any monthly maintenance and hence the suit filed under Section 18 of the Act was not maintainable. The question of maintainability was raised as a preliminary issue. The Family Court held by its order dated 15.9.2009 that the compromise entered into between the parties in a proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. would not be bar in entertaining a suit under Section 18 of the Act.

7. Aggrieved by the said order, petitioner took up the matter before the High Court by filing an appeal, being M.F.A. No. 31979 of 2010, which was dismissed by the High Court by its judgment dated 28.3.2011, against which this SLP has been preferred.

12. The above being the legal position, we find no error in the view taken by the Family Court, which has been affirmed by the High Court. The Petition is, therefore, dismissed in limine.
Rafiq Ahmedbhai Paliwala vs The State Of Gujarat

3. This appeal involves a short point as would be clear from the facts stated infra.

12. We cannot, therefore, countenance the approach of the High Court when it proceeded to quash the FIR partly in relation to more serious offences (Sections 392, 395 and 397 IPC) without allowing the IO to make proper investigation into its allegations.

13. In the light of the foregoing discussion, the appeal succeeds and is accordingly allowed. The impugned order is set aside.

14. We are, however, informed that pursuant to the directions issued by the High Court, the charge sheet has been filed in relation to the minor offences, which survived after quashing of the FIR. Be that as it may, the IO shall now make full and proper investigation into the allegations made in the original FIR lodged and after conclusion of the investigation will file additional charge sheet in relation to any other offences, if found made out.

15. Needless to say, the IO will make investigation strictly in accordance with law without being influenced by any observations. Let this be done within 3 months as an outer limit.

March 15, 2019.
State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Ram Veer Singh And Ors

Dal Chand (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased') along with his wife Smt. Raj Kaur, the informant (PW-1) and their son Paramjeet Singh (PW-7) had gone to graze their cattle. At about sunset time on their way back to their house they reached the courtyard of Ganga Ram. They were accosted by the appellants who came out from behind the bushes. Accused Ram Veer Singh was armed with a gandasa, Suresh was holding a Ballam and Chet Ram was possessing a lathi. They started belaboring the deceased Dal Chand, with their respective weapons by saying that he should not be spared. The cries of the above witness and the victim attracted Chottey, Ganga Ram and Dhyan Singh all residents of Mohanpur to the spot. On a challenge being given by them the assailants started dragging the victim by holding him by his feet. When they were challenged they rushed towards the witnesses also and the witnesses thereafter abandoned the chase of the assailants. They came back to the village and after sometime the informant had gone to the spot with the village Chowkidar. She did not find the body of her husband at the spot although blood was found lying there. The search for Dal Chand was conducted by his wife through out the night but he could not be located or found. No villager was informed or taken into confidence by her.

The motive of this murder as is apparent from the FIR was to avenge the murder of Raghuvir Singh resident of village Bhadaria. Ram Veer Singh was nursing a suspicion that deceased Dal Chand, was instrumental behind the murder of Raghuvir. The FIR of the present incident was lodged at the police station, Ganeshkhera by Smt. Raj Kaur on the next day at 9.15 A.M. The body of the victim was discovered from a pond which was full of water after a month of the occurrence. It was first discovered by the village Chowkidar. He informed Smt. Raj Kaur who identified the corpse so recovered from the pond of village Bhadaria as that of her husband Dal Chand. Identity was based solely from the clothes worn by the corpse. After identification of the corpse she informed the concerned police station at about 7 P.M. After completion of investigation charge sheet was filed and charges were framed.

10. In the instant case, we find that the reasons indicated by the High Court for recording the order of acquittal do not suffer from any infirmity to warrant interference. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Management, Essorpe Mills Ltd vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court And Ors

2. Background facts as projected by the appellant are as follows:

3. On 21.2.2004 the Special Leave Petitions were filed and when the matter came up for hearing on 20.3.2006 after notice, a Bench of this Court suggested certain terms for amicable settlement as set out in the order of said date. The appellant agreed to the terms proposed, but the respondents 2 to 23 did not agree.

21. Above being the position, the judgments of learned Single Judge as well as that of the Division Bench cannot be sustained and deserve to be set aside which we direct. Notwithstanding the same the fair approach indicated by the appellant by accepting the decision of this Court by order dated 20.3.2006 can be given effect to. It is open to respondents 2 to 23 or any of them to comply with the terms indicated.

22. The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. There will be no order as to costs.
The State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Hansraj @ Hansu

2. On 17.07.1998 wee hours at about 1.25 a.m. when PW-1 (Ram Chandra Misra) and PW-2 (P.C. Sharma) were on patrolling duty, they had received an information that the respondent-accused along with another person were about to transport country- made liquor for sale. When PW-1 and PW-2 apprehended the respondent-accused and his companion, the respondent-accused was found to be in possession of 2700 pouches of country made 2 liquor kept in 18 plastic bags and he was also found to be in possession of 300 grams of charas in his pocket. After the formal search and after completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the respondent-accused under Section 20 of the N.D.P.S. Act and under Section 60 of the Excise Act.

8. In the result, the appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
Asmathunnisa vs State Of A.P & Anr

2. The appellant is the Headmistress in the Little Star School located at Gayatri Hills, Yousufguda, Hyderabad has preferred this appeal against the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Criminal Petition No.2127 of 2006.

3. It may be pertinent to mention that her husband Mohd.

5. The brief facts which are necessary to dispose of this appeal are recapitulated as under:

6. The appellant has also been implicated because she had accompanied her husband to the house of the complainant.

28. When we apply the ratio of the settled principles of law to the facts of this case, then, in our considered opinion, the High Court ought to have exercised its jurisdiction under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and quashed the complaint qua the appellant only to prevent abuse of the process of law.

29. Consequently, we set aside the impugned judgment passed by the High Court and quash the complaint qua the appellant in Crime No.50 of 2006, Police Station Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh.

30. This appeal is accordingly allowed and disposed of.

March 29, 2011
Bechaarbhai S. Prajapati vs State Of Gujarat

4. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

As noted above, the appellant was convicted for offence punishable under Section 7(2) of the Act and Section 161 IPC. The appeal before the High Court was dismissed on the ground that there was sufficient evidence on record to hold that the appellant did demand and accept the bribe money from the complainant.

8. Looked at from these angles, it cannot be said that the conclusions of, either the trial Court or the High Court, suffer from any infirmity.

9. The alternative submission relates to the harshness of sentence. The occurrence took place nearly seven years back. It is stated that the appellant has suffered custody for more than six months. Taking into account all these aspects, we feel interest of justice would be best served if the sentence is reduced to the period undergone, while maintaining the conviction. It is to be noted that the minimum sentence prescribed under Section 7(2) of the Act is six months.

10. The appeal is dismissed subject to modification of the sentence as noted above.
Sasidhar Reddy Sura vs State Of A.P. & Ors

3. The selection of the appellant had been challenged by some candidates by filing W.P.No.894 of 2012 in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh on the ground that the appellant had not secured minimum required marks in the interview and she had not attained 35 years of age at the time of publication of the advertisement and therefore, she could not have been selected. The aforestated petition was allowed but it was allowed only on the ground of age limit of the appellant. The High Court was of the view that as the requirement of minimum marks had been done away with by virtue of an amendment made to Rule 6(4) & (10) of the A.P. State Judicial Service Rules, 2007 vide G.O. Ms. No.132, dated 16.11.2011, it was not necessary for the appellant to secure minimum marks in the interview for being eligible for appointment.

23. For the aforestated reasons, we are in agreement with the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and therefore, we quash the impugned judgment so far as it pertains to the present appellant and we direct that the appellant shall be appointed to the post in question with effect from the date on which he ought to have been appointed, however, he shall not be paid salary for the period during which he has not worked as a District and Sessions Judge. The appellant shall also be placed at appropriate place in the seniority list of the District Judges after considering his position in the merit list. We are sure that the respondent- High Court as well as the State shall do the needful for giving an appointment to the appellant at an early date.

24. The appeal stands disposed of as allowed with no order as to costs.

(Arising out of SLP(C) No.24313/2012)

1. Leave granted.

5. By virtue of an order passed in C.A.No.10836 of 2013 arising out of SLP(C) No.23171 of 2012, this Court has already held that there is no minimum age qualification for being appointed to the post in question and therefore, in our opinion, the appellant could not have been denied appointment to the post in question on the ground that she had not completed 35 years of age at the time when the advertisement had been published.

6. For the reasons recorded in C.A.No.10836 of 2013 arising out of SLP(C) No.23171 of 2012, the present appeal is allowed and it is directed that the High Court as well as the respondent-State will do the needful for giving appointment to the appellant with retrospective effect i.e. from the date on which she ought to have been appointed, however, she shall not be paid salary for the period during which she has not worked as a District & Sessions Judge. We are sure that the respondents would do the needful for the appointment of the appellant at an early date.

7. The appeal is allowed with no order as to costs.
Surinder Pal Soni vs Sohan Lal (D) Thru Lr

2 In 2006, the appellant instituted a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 8 December 2003. The appellant sought to enforce an agreement for the sale of land bearing 12 kanals and 9 marlas, representing a half share out of the land bearing Khewat Khatauni No. 565/525, Khasra No. 94/18 (7-8), 19(8-0), 20/1 (6-3), 21/1 (1-7) and 94/21/3 (2-0) situated in village Billa, Tehsil and District Panchkula. On 20 March 2012, the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Panchkula decreed the suit except for land bearing 2 kanals mentioned in the sale deed in exhibit-D3. Insofar as is material, the decree provided thus :

5 On 19 May 2014, the respondent filed objections to the execution petition. 6 On 17 January 2015, the Additional District Judge upheld the judgment and order of the Trial Court while dismissing both sets of appeals filed respectively by the appellant and the respondent.

(iii) The appellate court did not impose a time limit and, in consequence, the decree dated 17 January 2015 became enforceable from the date on which it was issued;

(i) within a period of 2 months;

22 We accordingly allow the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 1 June 2018 of the learned Single Judge in CR No. 3372 of 2015 (O&M). In consequence, the order passed by the Executing Court on 23 February 2015, dismissing the objections of the respondent – judgment debtor in Execution Petition No. 2489 of 2013 shall accordingly stand restored. 23 The appeal is allowed in the above terms. There shall be no order as to costs.

July 23, 2019.
K.K. Tiwari And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors.

2. Facts relevant and necessary leading to the filing of this appeal may be stated.

5. A Circular dated 29.07.1997 was issued by respondent No.2 in which it was stated that as on 1.4.1997 out of the then sanctioned strength of 445 posts of EEs, 354 posts (as against 297 posts) were occupied by those employees who have been promoted from the cadre of AEEs, while 76 posts (as against 148 posts) by those who belong to the cadre of AEs. It was also stated in the said Circular that the total demand for the year 1997-98 to the cadre of EEs was 58 posts, which were directed to be filled in by promotion from amongst AEs only.

6. The private respondents herein challenged the order dated 29.07.1997 of the Engineer-in-Chief - respondent No. 2 before the CAT, Principal Bench, Allahabad. The Tribunal by its order dated 08.02.2000 partly allowed the O.A. and directed respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to fill up the vacancies by promotion in the ratio of 2/3rd from AEEs and 1/3rd from AEs in accordance with the provisions of the relevant rules.

26. On evaluation of the findings recorded by the High Court and for the reasons discussed hereinabove, we do not find any manifest error or perversity in the judgment of the High Court warranting interference in this appeal.

27. In the result, the appeal is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs.
New India Assurance Company Ltd vs Smt. Shanti Pathak And Ors

3. The background facts which are almost undisputed essentially are as follows:

4. On 11.11.2002 Hem Pathak (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased') who was at the relevant point of time 25 years of age lost his life in a vehicular accident. He was traveling in Jeep No.UP 03/0805. The said jeep had a collision with truck bearing No.UP 20A-8491. Since the truck was the subject matter of insurance, the parents of the deceased filed a Claim Petition. The Tribunal as noted above awarded Rs.4,10,000/-. Since the age of the deceased was 25 years, multiplier of 17 was applied. The Tribunal referred to various decisions of this Court for quantifying the amount as Rs.4,10,000/-.

7. Considering the income that was taken, the foundation for working out the compensation cannot be faulted. The monthly contribution was fixed at Rs.3,500/-. In the normal course we would have remitted the matter to the High Court for consideration on the materials placed before it. But considering the fact that the matter is pending since long, it would be appropriate to take the multiplier of 5 considering the fact that the mother of the deceased is about 65 years at the time of the accident and age of the father is more than 65 years. Taking into account the monthly contribution at Rs.3,500/- as held by the Tribunal and the High Court, the entitlement of the claim would be Rs.2,10,000/-. The same shall bear interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of the application for compensation. Payment already made shall be adjusted from the amount due.

8. The appeal is disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.

The appeals are allowed to the aforesaid extent with no order as to costs.
R.K. Parvatharaj Gupta vs K.C. Jayadeva Reddy

The facts relevant for this case are as under :

The sale deed was to be executed within a period of four months. However, if the dispute between the Appellant and the said Chikkanarayanappa was not disposed of within the said period, the Appellant was required to have permission from the State.

The suit was, therefore, in terms of the requirement of Article 54 of the Limitation Act, should have been filed within a period of three years from the date of expiry of fifteen days from the date of receipt of the said notice.

In this view of the matter we are of the opinion that the impugned judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained, which is set aside accordingly. The appeal is allowed and the decree of the appellate court is restored. No costs.
Medical Council Of India vs The Chairman Sr Educational And ...

2. The High Court has decided the petitions of the four colleges by the common order.  Probably, High Court had felt that the question on which it decided the matters was common, however, the facts of each and every college are different, the deficiencies found obviously varies and the order of the High Court is subject to further judicial review. It would have been appropriate for the High Court to decide the matter by separate orders duly   reflecting   the   facts   of   each   case   and   the   deficiencies   found. Clubbing of matters in the method and manner it had been done may indicate   non­serious   approach.     In   three   of   the   matters,   question   was that of admissions in the academic session 2018­2019 and in one of the matters,   the   question   pertains   to   the   grant   of   recognition   as   well   as admissions.

4. The colleges had contended that they had rectified the deficiencies and   the   Hearing   Committee   had   recommended   the   MCI   to   review   the case.     Accordingly,   the   Central   Government   had   required   the   MCI   to review   its   earlier   stand.   However,   the   Executive   Committee   of   MCI refused to reconsider its earlier stand in view of the provisions contained in   the   Regulations   8(3)(1)(a)   of   the   Establishment   of   Medical   College Regulations,   1999   (for   short,   “the   Regulations”).     The   MCI   declined   to review   the   order  on   the   ground   that   the   time   for  the   MCI   to   send   its recommendations   to   Central   Government   had   already   expired   on   30 th April 2018 and the schedule was required to be strictly adhered to.

13 8(3)(1)(d): However, the office of the Council shall ensure that such inspection are not carried out at least 2 days before and 2 days after important religious and festival holidays declared by the Central/ State Government.” (2) The recognition so granted to an Undergraduate Course for award of MBBS degree shall be for a maximum period of 5 years, upon which it shall have to be renewed.

III. Mr. Sivan WIMS No.212033 – Gen Medicine Only admission request form – entire inpatient case records including names blank.

5. Data of Radiological & Laboratory investigations given by the Institute include data of private patients & Super specialties patients which is not permissible.

6. Wards: There is no signage of Unit-wise bed distribution, no faculty & residents were available inwards during the round. 31

8. 4 Mobile X-ray machines are available against the requirement of 6.

10. Pharmacology department: There are NIL Specimen & NIL Model in the Museum.

11. Forensic Medicine Department: Cold Storage is not available.

12. RHTC: Cold Chain equipment are not available.

13. Residents’ Hostel: On verification, about 15-20% of Residents are found to be not staying in the campus. Rooms allotted to them were closed on inspection by the assessors.”

However,   with   respect   to   admissions   in   2018­19,   the   recommendation was made not to admit the students.

OCTOBER 29, 2018 37