L-NLProc/TathyaNyaya-and-FactLegalLlama-NyayaScrape-Datasets huggingface dataset:
Neetu ...Appellants vs State Of Punjab And Ors. ...Respondents

Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent No.7 Daljit Singh, purportedly in public interest as a Public Interest Litigation (in short 'PIL'). Respondents 1 to 6 were official respondents in the writ petition. Grievance in the writ petition was that the appellant had got appointment as Audit Inspector, Co-operative Societies Ferozepur on the basis of Schedule Caste certificate though she was not member of any Scheduled Caste. It was averred that the appellant was married to Shri Jagminder Singh, member of the Scheduled Caste and it was on that basis aforesaid certificate had been obtained. It was stated that in spite of several complaints made to the authorities, no effective action was taken. The official respondents filed a reply to the effect that proceedings to cancel the scheduled caste certificate were under progress and, therefore, the writ petition was premature. The appellant filed a written statement stating that on account of her marriage with Jagminder Singh, she was to be considered as a member of the scheduled caste. It was pointed out that the writ petitioner was not qualified and only because of personal vendetta he had filed the writ petition styled as a PIL. The High Court by the impugned judgment issued a writ in the nature of qua warranto setting aside the appointment of the appellant.

The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent but without any order as to costs.
Indirect Tax Practitioners Assn vs R.K.Jain

2. This Court had, after taking cognizance of letter dated 18.9.1997 written by Justice U.L. Bhat, the then President of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal to the Chief Justice of India pointing out that the respondent had published objectionable editorials in 1996 (86) Excise Law Times pages A169 to A179, 1996 (87) Excise Law Times pages A59 to A70 and 1997 (94) Excise Law Times pages A65 to A82 containing half truths, falsehoods and exaggerated versions of the alleged deficiencies and irregularities in the functioning of the Tribunal, initiated contempt proceedings against the respondent which came to be registered as Contempt Petition (Criminal) No.15 of 1997. On 25.8.1998, the respondent filed an undertaking, the relevant portions of which are reproduced below:

After taking cognizance of the same, the Court passed the following order:-

4. Since no one seems to have taken cognizance of the letters written by the respondent, he wrote the editorial in which he commended the 10 administrative and judicial reforms initiated by the new President of CESTAT and, at the same time, highlighted how some members of CESTAT managed their stay at particular place. He also made a mention of what he perceived as irregularities in the appointment and posting of Shri T.K. Jayaraman, erstwhile Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore as member CESTAT. The respondent then referred to some of the orders passed by the Bench comprising Shri T.K. Jayaraman, which were adversely commented upon by the High Courts of Karnataka and Kerala. He also made a mention of the irregularities in the functioning of the Registry of CESTAT.

(emphasis supplied)

deposit of balance amount. However, subsequently CESTAT Bangalore modified its own order and waived even this condition for deposit of Rs.25 crores [2005 (182) E.L.T. 114 (Tri. - Bang.)].

[Emphasis supplied] Pre-deposit of Rs.440 crores waived without any financial hardship - High Court rulings again violated:

25. In the result, the petition is dismissed. For filing a frivolous petition, the petitioner is saddled with cost of Rs.2,00,000/-, of which Rs.1,00,000/- shall be deposited with the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee and Rs.1,00,000/- shall be paid to the respondent.
State Of Rajasthan And Anr vs Rajasthan Chemist Association

The State on the other hand took the stand that what is to be the measure of tax on a sale is within the domain of the State Legislature. Under the impugned provision, tax is levied on a completed sale within the meaning of Section 4 of the Sales Act. However, in what manner the charge is to be levied is a matter of details which can be worked out by Legislation. The fact that maximum retail price is to be determined statutorily and the State Legislature has taken into account the fact that the actual consideration at the first point tax may be lesser than the maximum retail price that may be charged ultimately from the consumer at the last point sale as provided for abatement of MRP by reducing therefrom the sum at prescribed rates of abatement for the purpose of levy of tax, it provides sound basis for uniform liability in the State on such transaction. The levy of tax cannot be said to be wanting in nexus with the taxing event. Therefore, the impugned provisions and the Notifications cannot be said to be ultra vires any provision of the Constitution. It was however not disputed that but for taking the MRP as a basis to provide measure of tax, no fictional price can be fixed as a measure of tax on sale of goods. The High Court on analyzing the provision in great detail came to hold as follows:

Thus primarily the rate of tax relates to measure of tax to come into existence simultaneous with occurrence of taxing event. The machinery provisions relating to its quantification and collection can take place later. Providing measure to which rate is to be applied is integrally connected with charge itself.

In that view of the matter, the judgment of the High Court does not warrant any interference and the appeal is dismissed. However, it is made clear that if the tax component has been passed on to the subsequent purchases claim for refund shall not be entertained. But where it has not been so passed on and has been deposited with the authorities, the same shall be adjusted against future demands, if any.

The appeal is dismissed. No costs.
Leeladhar (D) Thr. Lrs. vs Vijay Kumar (D) Thr. Lrs.

One Leeladhar, the original appellant herein, entered into an agreement to sell 18 bighas of land for a sum of Rs.40,000/­ with Deshraj, father of the plaintiffs­respondents herein on 15.02.1985. Admittedly, an amount of Rs.35,000/­ was paid in advance. This agreement to sell was registered on 18.02.1985. On 26.03.1985 another document (Exhibit P­14) was entered into between the parties. Leeladhar was paid balance Rs.5,000/­ and the subsequent agreement notes that he gave possession of the 1 land to Deshraj. On 20.01.1988, Deshraj issued a legal notice to Leeladhar asking him to get the sale deed executed. According to the plaintiffs, they and their father went to the office of the Sub­ Registrar on 15.02.1988 for this purpose. But Leeladhar did not turn up. Deshraj expired on 16.05.1988 and, thereafter, the respondents herein filed a suit in the Court of Civil Judge, Nainital praying for specific performance of the contract and also prayed that if any part of the disputed land is not found in their possession, then possession be given to them. In the alternative, they prayed for refund of Rs.40,000/­ along with interest.

(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. After remand, the Additional District Judge dismissed the appeal of Leeladhar and upheld the order of the trial court. The second appeal filed by Leeladhar before the High Court was dismissed and, hence, this appeal.

8. In view of the above, we find no merit in the appeal which is accordingly dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.
Sadashiv Ramrao Hadbe vs State Of Maharashtra And Anr.

1. This is an appeal preferred against the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad. The appellant is a medical Page 609 practioner and he was charged by the prosecution alleging that he raped a patient who had visited his clinic for treatment. The appellant was found guilty by the Additional Sessions Court, Ambajogai, and he was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of ten yeas and a fine of rupees five thousand and a sentence of six months for non-payment of fine. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed an appeal before the High Court and the Division Bench of the High Court confirmed the conviction and sentence.

2. The facts in short are as follows:

3. PW-11 took over the investigation; he recorded further statement of the complainant. The prosecutrix then was taken to the clinic of the appellant and there he prepared the spot panchnama. He seized the petticot and the sari worn by the prosecutrix at the time of the incident. The complainant was sent to Ambajogai Hospital for medical examination. The appellant was arrested on the same day and he was also taken for medical examination. During the course of investigation PW-11 has also collected the samples of Semen and blood of the appellant. The blood sample was sent to Hyderabad Laboratory for examination. PW-11 recorded the statement of witnesses and thereafter filed the final report.

13. We set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant. The appellant, who is in jail, is directed to be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.

The appeal is accordingly allowed.
Moidenkutty vs State Of Kerala

The deceased is the brother of the appellant herein. They were living with their parents and sister in the 'tharavad' house. It appears that the accused and the appellant were living in different premises only at a little distance. The house of the accused-appellant is closer to their family house than the house of the deceased.

The incident appears to have taken place at about 9 p.m. on 19.7.1998. The motive therefor is said to be not only a property dispute between the brothers but also discovery by the appellant that the deceased-Hussain peeped into the bathroom where the daughter-in-law of the accused-appellant was taking bath. It is also alleged in the First Information Report that in regard to the said incident the -1- wife of the appellant had quarrelled with the deceased. The appellant had asked the deceased not to enter into his house resulting in an altercation. However, they were separated at that time by their father.

It appears from the records that for serving dinner to his parents he came late on that date with some sweets and placed the same on the doorsteps of the house. The deceased again started quarrelling with the accused asking as to why he was asked not to enter his house. He caught hold of the collar of the accused and made attempts to assault him with a stick, which was concealed under his shirt. Allegedly, at that point of time, the appellant stabbed him twice resulting in his death.

The High Court, however, in an appeal preferred by the appellant opined that from the materials on record it was evident that the deceased had been waiting with a stick in the 'tharavad' house for the accused to come and when he came, he wanted to assault him and as the incident had happened at that point of time, the appellant committed an offence under Section 304 Part 1 I.P.C. On that finding -2- conviction and sentence under Section 302 I.P.C. was set aside. The High Court sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-.

Although, the mother of the appellant was declared hostile and despite the fact that no other person had witnessed the occurrence, a judgment of conviction and sentence for commission of an offence under Section 302 I.P.C. was recorded by the Addl.District & Sessions Judge(Fast Track Court), Manjeri.

Although, the State has not preferred any appeal against the judgment of the High Court, we have been taken through the materials on record and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case, we do not find any reason to differ with the view of the High Court.

It is stated at the Bar that the appellant has been in custody for about five years. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the interest of justice would be subserved if the appeal is allowed in part modifying the sentence to the period already undergone by the appellant. It is directed accordingly. If the appellant is in custody, he may be released forthwith unless wanted in connection with any other case.

......................J. [S.B. SINHA] .....................J [ CYRIAC JOSEPH ] New Delhi, August 28, 2008.
Umesh Pandey vs Chairman, Bihar State Hsg Brd,Bihar ...

In response to an advertisement issued by the Bihar Housing Board (for short, "the Board"), a number of persons including the respondent applied for allotment of MIG house in the town of Arrah. The respondent submitted the required documents. A lottery was drawn on 12.1.1983 to determine as to which house would go to the particular applicant but only 23 out of 30 applicants were allotted houses measuring 2250 sq. fts. At an estimated cost of Rs.86,913/-. The respondent was not allotted the house on the pretext that he had not submitted affidavit in the prescribed format. He filed a writ petition, which was registered as CWJC No.5774 of 1986 for issue of a direction to the Board to allot him MIG house. By an order dated 9.9.1987, the High Court directed the Board to file a detailed affidavit giving particulars of the persons whose cases were considered for allotment of houses and names of the persons whose applications were rejected on the ground of being defective. However, the required affidavit was not filed.

During the pendency of the writ petition, the respondent was allotted a house at Dalpatpur (Arrah) at an estimated cost of Rs.1,49,370/-. The area of the new house was 1237 sq. feet as against 2250 sq. feet of the houses allotted in 1993 at an estimated cost of Rs.86,913/-.

The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition on 20.3.1996. He held that the action of the Board to exclude the writ petitioner from the lottery held in 1983 was wholly unreasonable, arbitrary and unjustified and accordingly directed the Board to allot a house to the writ petitioner. On appeal, the Division Bench of the High Court set aside the order of the learned Single Judge on the premise that during the pendency of the writ petition, the Board had offered another house to the writ petitioner, which was not challenged by him.

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, impugned order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court is set aside and the one passed by the learned Single Judge is restored.
Raj Kumar Prasad Tamarkar Àappellants vs State Of Bihar & Anr. Àrespondents

The prosecution case is when the deceased had gone upstairs with the dinner of the respondent, a sound of a gunfire was heard by the informant at the first floor. PW-3 rushed to the second floor immediately and found the deceased lying in a pool of blood in the terrace having a gun shot injury. Allegedly, he exclaimed "DIDI KO KISEE NEI GOLI MAR DIYA". Hearing these words, the parents of the deceased also rushed to the second floor and found her lying in the terrace in the pool of blood with a gun shot injury on her forehead. Respondent was seen hiding something by PW-2. When the mother of the deceased Gouri Devi (PW-2) took the deceased's head on her lap, the respondent also came out. She was brought downstairs and taken to a nursing home. Respondent was also said to have accompanied them in a rickshaw. She was declared dead. Before the deceased was taken to the nursing home, PW-2 had locked the room from outside.

The investigating officer, on opening of the lock, found a revolver from which smoke was still coming out. It was found from the bed-stead of the room.

Respondent was arrested. Principal witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution to prove the offence against the respondent before the learned Sessions Judge were PW-2, PW-3 and PW-13, mother, brother and informant - father of the deceased respectively. Indisputably, they were present in the house when the occurrence had taken place. The autopsy report was prepared by Dr. Kaushlendra Kumar (PW-1) posted at Sadar Hospital, Giridih. He found the following injuries on the person of the deceased:

On further desection subcutaneous tissues under the lacerated wound on the forehead in middle i.e. Glabella region and the underlying frontal bone consisted a circular hole =" x =" Cranial cavity deep.

On further desection the menigges and the brain were lacerated and terro posteriorly with extra cranial blood clot. On bullet was taken out from the posterior cranial fossa. The bullet was sealed and handed over the investigating agency."

Bharti Devi (PW-4) was the aunt of the deceased, i.e., the brother's wife of informant (PW-13). She was staying in the same house. She deposed that at the relevant time the respondent was staying in the house and he had come asking for Bidai of the deceased. Suresh Kumar (PW-3) is another brother of the informant living in the same house. He was informed by the informant that it was the respondent who was responsible for the death of his daughter (deceased).

The learned Sessions Judge on the basis of the aforementioned evidence found the respondent guilty of commission of murder and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.

[See also Prithvi (Minor) v. Mam Raj and Others, (2004) 13 SCC 279, State of U.P. v. Satish, (2005) 3 SCC 114] For the reasons aforementioned, we set aside the judgment of the High Court and restore that of the learned Sessions Judge. The appeals are allowed. The respondent is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. He may be taken in custody forthwith to serve out the sentence.
Ramraj @ Nanhoo @ Bihnun vs State Of Chhattisgarh

2. From the judgment impugned in the Special Leave Petition, it appears that Bigani Bai was married to the accused/petitioner Ramraj from 6-7 years prior to the date of the incident, namely, the intervening night of 28th and 29th October, 1993. According to the prosecution, Bigani Bai (the victim) and the accused-petitioner had quarrelled in the evening and in the night on hearing the cries of the child, when Ramraj tried to wake up Bigani Bai and she did not wake up, Ramraj assaulted Bigani Bai with a stick causing severe internal and external injuries as a result of which Bigani Bai died. It was also the prosecution case that the petitioner informed the villagers that Bigani Bai had died on account of pain in her stomach. Information was accordingly sent to the parents of the deceased and on receiving the same, the father of the deceased, Somarsai (PW-1), came and saw that the face of the deceased was in swollen condition and clotted blood was present on her mouth. Somarsai is alleged to have asked the petitioner to report the matter to the police before burying the dead body. However, in disregard of such direction, the petitioner buried the body of the deceased. Since this gave rise to suspicion, the body of the deceased was exhumed on the report of Somarsai and on post-mortem examination thereof, it was found that the mandible bone was fractured and on opening the body, the liver was also found ruptured. According to the doctor, the cause of death was internal haemorrhage due to rupture of the liver which is homicidal in nature. Incidentally, the weapon of assault is also said to have been recovered at the instance of the petitioner.

17. In the present case, the facts are such that the petitioner is fortunate to have escaped the death penalty. We do not think that this is a fit case where the petitioner should be released on completion of 14 years imprisonment. The petitioner's case for premature release may be taken up by the concerned authorities after he completes 20 years imprisonment, including remissions earned.

18. The Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
Shyam Narayan Prasad vs Krishna Prasad

3. The plaintiffs filed the aforesaid suit against the defendants for a declaration that the document dated 30.1.1990 (Exhibit P2) executed between defendant Nos. 1 and 2 is invalid and for certain other reliefs. According to them, the family property was partitioned on 31.7.1987 between Gopalji and his five sons, namely, Laxmi Prasad, Ayodhya Prasad, Shyam Narayan Prasad, Dr. Onkarnath Gupta and Suresh Kumar. In the partition Gopalji has retained some of the properties for his personal use till his death. Laxmi Prasad got his share of property along with half portion of existing two-storey RCC building situated at Singtam Bazar, East Sikkim, wherein presently a liquor shop is being run. Shyam Narayan Prasad was allotted a shoe shop at Manihari which is run on a rented premises owned by Gouri Shankar Prasad. He was also allotted other properties in the partition.

24. In the result, this appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.

July 02, 2018.
Kanta Yadav vs Om Prakash Yadav

3) The brief facts leading to the present appeal are that one Zorawar Singh was owner of certain immoveable property in New Delhi. He executed a Will dated June 16, 1985 and codicil dated October 21, 1995 bequeathing a self-acquired property in favour of both the parties. Zorawar Singh died on January 4, 1986. Two suits came to be filed; one by the present respondents bearing CS (OS) No. 3310 of 2012 claiming declaration and permanent injunction in respect of the Will and codicil executed by Zorawar Singh and also will dated June 18, 2009 executed by Smt. Ram Pyari, wife of Zorawar Singh; and the other suit filed by the present appellant bearing CS (OS) No. 430 of 2012 claiming natural succession.

6. As I have said the clear reading of the provisions of the Act leave no doubt whatever that no probate is necessary in order to set up a claim regarding property either movable or immovable on the basis of a will executed in the Punjab and not relating to property situated in the territories mentioned in section 57(a). I accordingly accept the revision petition and set aside the order of the lower Court requiring the petitioner to obtain probate. The matter may now be disposed of by the lower Court, where the parties have been directed to appear on the 4th of December, 1961. The parties will bear their own costs in this Court.”

Therefore, there is no problem in arriving at the conclusion that if the will is made in Delhi relating to immovable property in Delhi by Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh or Jaina, no probate is required.”

14) In view of the above, we do not find any error in the judgment passed by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed.

JULY 24, 2019.

Page 9 of 9