L-NLProc/TathyaNyaya-and-FactLegalLlama-NyayaScrape-Datasets huggingface dataset:
Kandarpa Sarma vs Rajeswar Das & Ors

3. The respondent State issued an advertisement for filling up the post of Gaonburah of Tikka Garia Gaon, Mouza: Sariha in the District of Barpeta. The appellant as also respondent no. 1 along with others submitted their candidature as against the aforesaid advertisement which was issued on 11.11.1998 by the Sub-Divisional Office, Balaji Sub Division. After submission of the applications by the various candidates, the circle officer 1 submitted a report along with other records regarding suitability of the candidates which was considered by the Selection Committee consisting of the Sub-Divisional Officer Balaji Sub Division,, the Circle Officer and the Election Officer. The said selection committee considered the records and found the appellant as the most suitable candidate and appointed him as the Gaonburah.

5. The aforesaid Second Appeal was dismissed consequent upon which the appellant herein filed a Writ Petition before the High Court which was registered as Writ Petition (C ) No. 8019/2001. The learned Single Judge by a judgment and order dated 11.5.2004 allowed the writ petition and directed that the appellant be 2 allowed to continue as Gaonburah of Tikka Garia Gaon, Mouza:

6. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge, respondent no. 1 filed an appeal before the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court which was registered as Writ Appeal No. 228 of 2004. The Division Bench, after hearing the counsel appearing for the parties on 15.11.2006 allowed the appeal by its judgment and order dated 17.11.2006 whereby the Division Bench not only set aside the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge but it also restored the order passed by the Second Appellate Authority directing appointment of respondent no. 1 as Gaonburah. By virtue of the aforesaid order, respondent no. 1 assumed charge of the office and he, as of today, continues to hold the post of Gaonburah.

21. Since the selection committee has been directed to complete the entire process of fresh selection and appointment 11 within four months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, respondent no. 1 would continue to hold the post till the order of appointment is issued by the sub-Divisional Officer in accordance with law within a period of four months. The said continuation would be only as a stop gap arrangement so that the working of Gaonburah is not affected in any manner. He shall in no case be allowed to continue beyond a period of four months. We make it clear that respondent no. 1 will not claim any equity also to hold the post beyond four months and also beyond the terms as mentioned herein.

22. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

23. I.A. is also disposed of in terms of the aforesaid order.
Natco Pharma Limited vs Union Of India & Ors

On 2nd April, 2007, Central Government appointed S.Chandrasekaran as Technical Member (Patent) of IPAB vide notification of even date. On 3rd April, 2007, notification was issued notifying 2nd April, 2007 as the date for transfer of appeals pending before any High Court to IPAB. The appeals were transferred to the IPAB by the High Court vide its order dated 4th April, 2007.

On 16th June, 2007, Misc. Petition Nos.1 and 2 of 2007 were filed by respondent No.4 herein before IPAB praying for the appointment of another Technical Member in place of S.Chandrasekaran on the ground that the said Member had earlier filed an affidavit in the matter taking a particular position in the dispute which has a direct bearing on the case in hand.

From that list submitted to us, we have opted for the name of Dr.P.C.Chakraborti, Deputy Controller of Patents & Designs, who holds post- graduate degree of M.Sc.(Chemistry) as well as Ph.D. We, accordingly, direct that all preliminaries will be completed by the parties in the month of October, 2008 and the IPAB duly reconstituted under our orders, which would include Dr. P.C.Chakraborti, would hear and decide the pending Appeal Nos.TA/001/2007/PT/CH to TA/005/2007/PT/CH preferably in the month of November, 2008. We direct the IPAB to list the above Appeals before it for directions on 3rd November, 2008. The matter will be heard and disposed of on day- to-day basis.

Civil Appeals are disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).1323-1337/2008 (From the judgement and order dated 13/11/2007 in WP Nos. 26676 to 26680 of 2007 & MP Nos.1 & 2 of 2007 of the HIGH COURT OF MADRAS) NATCO PHARMA LIMITED Petitioner(s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s) (With prayer for interim relief and office report) Date: 01/10/2008 These Petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM :
State Bank Of Hyderabad vs Town Municipal Council

Appellant -Bank filed a suit against the respondent. The suit related to ownership of a plot admeasuring 610 ft. x 250 ft. situated in the town Yadgir. It was purchased by the plaintiff in a public auction. Allegedly, the respondent is now claiming back the said amount. The suit was initially filed for a decree for injunction. The respondent filed another suit in the same court also for a suit for permanent injunction restraining the Bank from constructing any building. The suit of the appellant was dismissed whereas the suit of the respondent was decreed. Appeals were preferred there against by both the parties. In the said appeals, an application was filed for grant of leave to amend the plaint. The said application for grant of leave to amend the plaint was allowed by the appellate court by an order dated 7.04.2003. The appellate court remanded both the suits to the trial court for their disposal afresh on merits. Second Appeals were filed by the respondent herein before the High Court. The High Court by reason of the impugned judgment opined that the said application for amendment was not maintainable in view of the proviso appended to Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Code). On the said finding not only the order granting leave to amend the plaint was set aside, the appeals were also allowed and the matter was remitted to the first appellate court for its consideration afresh in accordance with law.

For the reasons aforementioned, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained which is set aside accordingly. The appeal is allowed and the matter is remitted to the High Court for consideration of the appeal afresh in accordance with law. All contentions of the parties shall, however, remain open.
Rakesh Kumar Mishra vs State Of Bihar And Ors

Respondent no.2 who appeared in person submitted that no material has been brought on record as from what source the name of Ratneshwar cropped up. The acts done were clearly outside the scope of official duty and therefore, the protection under Section 197 of the Code is not available. Reference was made to certain alleged events to contend that the intention was to falsely implicate Ratnesh and, therefore, the police officials went to the extent of forging alleged confessional statement of one Sanjay Singh.

The appeal in the above said circumstances is allowed. The order of the Magistrate taking cognizance consequently is set aside.
Sikander Mahto vs Tunna @ T.Mian @ T Mian @ M Ansari & Anr

4. Aggrieved, the first respondent moved the Patna High Court. By order dated 14.11.2008 the High Court interfered with the order of the learned Trial Court and allowed the application of the first respondent herein declaring him to be a juvenile and to be of sixteen and a half years of age on the date of alleged occurrence. Challenging the aforesaid finding of the High Court, the complainant, who is the father of the victim of the crime, has approached this Court.

“In order to find out the age of Respondent No.1-accused on the date of occurrence, we direct the Principal, Government Primary Urdu School, Shekhawa, Basantpur, Block-Mainatand, West Champaran, Bihar and Principal, Government Primary School, Purbi Paukuahwa, Block-Mainatand, West Champaran, Bihar to appear alongwith the connected original record before this Court on 24th February, 2014.

List on 24th February, 2014”

10. We, therefore, cannot sustain the order dated 14.11.2008 passed by the High Court. In the result, we allow this appeal and set aside the said order dated 14.11.2008 passed by the High Court and restore the order dated 24.12.2007 passed by the learned Trial Court.

...…………………………CJI.

[P. SATHASIVAM] .........………………………J. [RANJAN GOGOI] NEW DELHI, FEBRUARY 27, 2014.
Dayal Das vs State Of Rajasthan

4. Brief facts which are relevant to dispose of this appeal are recapitulated as under:

6. On the basis of the Parcha Bayan, the Police 3 Officer registered the First Information Report ("FIR" for short) and started investigation. After investigation it was found that seven persons, namely, Lal Chand, Arjun, Bhagwan, Chaman Das, Dhanna, Jethanand and Suresh Rawat lost their lives due to consuming of illicit liquor.

7. The Additional Sessions Judge, Ajmer, after trial of this case delivered the judgment on 7.8.1984 in Sessions Case No.3/1980 convicting the appellant Dayal Das under Section 304 Part-II and Section 328 of the Indian Penal (IPC) Code and Section 54-A of the Rajasthan Excise Act. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and a fine of Rs.4,000/- under Section 304 Part-II of the IPC and he was further convicted and sentenced to simple imprisonment for three years and imposed a fine of Rs.3000/- under Section 54-A of the Rajasthan Excise Act. However, both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

15. In this view of the matter, we are left with no option but to set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court as also the judgment of the Trial Court. Consequently, the conviction of the appellant is set aside and he is directed to be released from jail forthwith unless required in connection with any other case.

16. The appeal filed by the appellant is allowed 7 and disposed of accordingly.

17. The appellant was not represented by any counsel and this Court had to appoint amicus curiae in this matter. Therefore, we direct that copies of this Judgment/order be sent to all concerned authorities forthwith for compliance of the order.

18. Before parting with this case, we would like to place on record our appreciation for very able assistance provided to us by the learned amicus curiae Mr. D.N. Goburdhan,Advocate.

.....................J (DALVEER BHANDARI) .....................J (DEEPAK VERMA) New Delhi;

February 22, 2011.
G.Ravindranath @ R.Chowdary vs E.Srinivas & Anr

The appellant, who was 19 years old at the relevant time and was assisting his father in agricultural operations, suffered grievous injuries in an accident which occurred on 31.10.2000 when respondent No.1 reversed Tipper No. APH 5971 in a rash and negligent manner without care and without signal and dashed against the appellant. The rear tyre of the Tipper caused fracture in the pelvic region of the appellant. He was initially treated at Bhandari Hospital, Raichur. Later, he was taken to Nizam’s Institute of Medical Sciences, Hyderabad (NIMS). The doctors at NIMS diagnosed that the appellant had sustained pelvic and urethral injuries (total urethral rupture).

2. In between the period of treatment had the swelling of my private part. Now also I am going to Nizam Hospital Hyderabad for my treatment as advised. Now also I have pain in the pelvic region and now also I find it very difficult to pass my urine naturally.

4. I was also assisting my father in my agricultural work after my college hours, My father has 8 acres of land (irrigated), at Amareshwar Camp. I was also vending the milk from the 6 she buffalo which were maintained by my family. Now I am unable to assist my father in agricultural work and also in milk vending due to ray pain and injury in the pelvic region. I was forced to discontinue my studies due to the said factor. I was contributing about Rs.4000 under my services to my family.

Most of the visits he was accompanied with his father.

xxx xxx xxx For erectile disjunction he might retire if he is willing prosthetic penile implantation which is an artificial erection. It is an expensive operation and fraught with complications.” In cross-examination, nothing could be elicited by Dr.P.V.L.N.Murthy which may cast doubt on his testimony regarding the nature of injuries and treatment given to the appellant by NIMS.

In our view, the appellant is entitled to Rs.2,20,000/- towards the expenses incurred in the treatment including hospitalization charges, mess and lodging charges, transportation, etc. For future medical expenses including hospitalization, medicines, attendant charges, etc., the appellant is entitled to Rs.6 lakhs. For pain, suffering and trauma, the appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs.3 lakhs. For loss of amenities and prospects of marriage, the appellant is entitled to Rs.4 lakhs. For loss of expectation of life and loss of future earning, the appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs.5 lakhs.

In the result, the appeal is allowed, the impugned judgment is set aside and it is held that the appellant is entitled to total compensation of Rs.20,20,000/- (rupees twenty lakhs twenty thousand only) with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of actual payment.

JULY 1, 2013.
Kaliaperumal vs Rajagopal & Anr

2. The facts emerging from the record of the case are as under: -

5. Feeling aggrieved the respondents preferred Appeal No. 55 of 1987 in the District Court South Arcot District at Cuddalore. The learned District Judge also held that title of the appellant to the suit properties was established in view of the execution of sale deed and its registration, but he was not entitled to mesne profits. After holding that the appellant had failed to prove the payment of Rs.25,000/- he held that the appellant was due in respect of the balance consideration of Rs.40,000/- to the respondents. The learned District Judge clarified that the appellant would be entitled to possession of the suit properties only after he deposited the said Rs.40,000/- and that the respondents will be entitled to draw the said amount from the court. 7 Thus the learned District Judge partly allowed the appeal of the respondents by judgment and order dated December 15, 1988.

12. For the foregoing reasons the appeal fails and is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

February 20, 2009.
Mukul Mahto & Ors vs State Of Jharkhand & Anr

2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

On the basis of the information lodged, investigation was undertaken. After the death of the deceased on 15.8.1984 charge under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC was added in addition to the registration of the case under Sections 341, 323 and 506 read with Section 34 IPC. Accused persons pleaded innocence. It was stated that accused Durga had instituted a case against 11 persons including the informant, the deceased, Golak Mahto (PW-3), Kirtan Mahto, Laxman Mahto (PW-8) and one Nitu Mahto. The trial Court came to hold that accusations were not established. The main reason given for the acquittal of accused persons was that PWs 1 and 2 were hearsay witnesses and PWs 4 and 6 are related to the deceased. They claimed to be the eye witnesses to the occurrence and were not cited in the first information report. PW-8 was an injured witness who had stated that 3 when he reached the place of occurrence, none was present except the accused persons and the prosecution party and this falsified the claim of PWs 4 and 6 that they had witnessed the actual assault. One of the injured Kiran Mahto was not examined and no explanation was given for his non examination. The evidence of PWs 3, 7, 8 and 10 was held to be not sufficient though they claimed to have sustained injuries. Another factor which weighed with the trial Court was that the witnesses were close relatives of the deceased.

9. The High Court found the present appellants guilty. But considering the manner of assault and the surrounding factors convicted them for offence punishable under Section 326 read with Section 34 IPC. The judgment of the High Court does not suffer from any infirmity to warrant interference.

10. The appeals are dismissed.
Union Of India And Ors vs Capt. Satendra Kumar

The background facts in a nutshell are as under:

Respondent filed a Writ Petition before the Allahabad High Court challenging the order dated 5.7.2000. The primary stand was that by the time the order was passed, period for passing the examination was extended upto 20 years and, therefore, he had time till 9.6.2004 to pass the examination in question. The present appellants pointed out that by the time the amendment was made the period of 13 years prescribed under the Army Instructions was already over and in any event the amendment was operative with effect from 24.4.1998 and was not applicable to the respondent.

So far as the amendment to the Army Instructions and Regulations are concerned, the amended Army Instructions issued on 20th August, 1999 were applicable with effect from 24.4.1998. That is clearly indicated in the amended instructions issued on 20th August, 1999. The President had sanctioned the amendment to be operative from 24.4.1998. By the time the amendment came into effect, the 13 years period which was available to the respondent to pass Part B examination was over. The notice regarding non success in the examination within the stipulated time had also been given to the respondent on 11.9.1997. Merely because the final order was passed on 21.9.2001 that did not change the position so far as the respondent is concerned. The High Court is, therefore, clearly in error in holding that the extended period of 20 years was applicable to the respondent. The High Court's order is indefensible and is set aside. The appeal is allowed. No costs.

Rule 13-A. Termination of Service of an officer by the Central Government on his failure to qualify at an examination or course (1) when an officer does not appear at or, having appeared fails to qualify at the retention examination or promotion examination or any other basic course or examination within the time or extended time specified in respect of that examination or course, the Chief of the Army Staff (or the Military Secretary) shall call upon the officer to show cause why he should not be compulsorily retired or removed from the service.

(2) In the event of the explanation being considered by the Chief of the Army Staff (or the Military Secretary) to be unsatisfactory, the matter shall be submitted to the Central Government for orders, together with the officer's explanation and the recommendations of the Chief of the Army Staff (or the Military Secretary) as to whether the officer should be-

(b) called upon to resign.
State Of A.P vs Patchimala Vigneswarudu @ Viganna

2. Prosecution story, in brief, is that Pachimala Ganga, daughter of PW-1 Jithuka Nagooru and PW-2 Jithuka Veeramma, got married to the accused/respondent. Their marriage was solemnized some two years before the date of incident. After marriage deceased Pachimala Ganga joined company of her husband at Cheyyeru Agraharam, and started living with him. After some time the accused came to know that he was suffering from venereal disease. He suspected that he might have contacted it through his wife. This started souring of relations between the two. According to the prosecution, the accused thereafter started ill-treating his wife, on which she left him and went to her parents’ house. Sarojini, sister of the accused, went to the house of the parents of the deceased and promised that the deceased would not be subjected to ill-treatment. On this personation deceased went again to Cheyyeru Agraharam, i.e. village of her husband, but she was again allegedly subjected to harassment. As such, prior to ten days before her death PW-1 and PW-2 (parents of the deceased) took her back to their house.

5. It appears that I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Amalapuram, committed the case to the Court of Sessions of East Godavari Division of Rajahmundry. Learned Sessions Judge, after hearing the parties, on 28.02.2002, framed charge of offence punishable under Section 302 IPC against accused Patchimala Vigneswarudu @ Vigganna @ Ganapathi and explained the same to him in Telugu to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

11. As far as relation between the accused and the deceased is concerned, the prosecution evidence on record, as stated by PW-1 and PW-2, is corroborated by the fact that the accused himself has admitted his marriage with the deceased, and his strained relations with her.

15. Lastly, it is stated on record by the prosecution witnesses that the accused absconded after the incident.

viii) It is also established that the accused absconded from the village after the incident.

19. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is set aside. The order of conviction and sentence recorded by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Rajahmundry in Sessions Case No. 363 of 2001 against the accused/respondent is restored. The accused/respondent shall be taken into custody by the trial court to make him serve out the remaining part of the sentence.

January 06, 2016.
Pioneer Urban Land And Infrastructure ... vs Govindan Raghavan

3. For the sake of brevity, the facts in C.A. No. 12238 of 2018 are being referred to, being the lead matter. The factual matrix of the said Civil Appeal is as under :

2 3.2. The excavation of the project commenced on 04.06.2012. As per Clause 11.2 of the Agreement, the Builder was required to apply for the Occupancy Certificate by 04.09.2015, or within a further grace period of 6 months i.e. by 04.03.2016, and offer possession of the flat to the Respondent – Flat Purchaser. The Appellant – Builder however failed to apply for the Occupancy Certificate as per the stipulations in the Agreement.

3.5. During the pendency of the proceedings before the National Commission, the Appellant – Builder obtained the Occupancy Certificate on 23.07.2018, and issued a Possession Letter to the Respondent – Flat Purchaser on 28.08.2018.

7. In view of the above discussion, we have no hesitation in holding that the terms of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement dated 08.05.2012 were wholly one-sided and unfair to the Respondent – Flat Purchaser. The Appellant – Builder could not seek to bind the Respondent with such one-sided contractual terms.

Estate (Regulation And Development) Rules, 2017 from the date of each installment till 05.02.2017 i.e. till the date after which the Order of stay of cancellation of the allotment was passed; and thereafter, from the date of the Commission’s final Order till the date on which the amount is refunded with Interest.

9. We see no illegality in the Impugned Order dated 23.10.2018 passed by the National Commission. The Appellant – Builder failed to fulfill his contractual obligation of obtaining the Occupancy Certificate and offering possession of the flat to the Respondent – Purchaser within the time stipulated in the Agreement, or within a reasonable time thereafter. The Respondent – Flat Purchaser could not be compelled to take possession of the flat, even though it was offered almost 2 years after the grace period under the Agreement expired. During this period, the Respondent – Flat Purchaser had to service a loan that he had obtained for purchasing the flat, by paying Interest @10% to the Bank. In the meanwhile, the Respondent – Flat Purchaser also located an alternate property in Gurugram. In these circumstances, the 21 Respondent – Flat Purchaser was entitled to be granted the relief prayed for i.e. refund of the entire amount deposited by him with Interest.

10. The Civil Appeals are accordingly dismissed, and the Final Judgment and Order dated 23.10.2018 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission is affirmed. The appellant is granted a period of three months from today to refund the amount to the respondent. All pending Applications, if any, are accordingly disposed of.