L-NLProc/TathyaNyaya-and-FactLegalLlama-NyayaScrape-Datasets huggingface dataset:
Prabir Mondal & Anr vs State Of West Bengal

5. Mr. Ghosh urged that although the incident is said to have occurred at about 11.00 p.m. in the 4 night of 6th September, 1982, the same was reported to the Berhampore Police Station only at 9.45 a.m. on 7th September, 1982, after the lapse of about 11 hours. From the First Information Report, Mr. Ghosh also pointed out that although the complaint was lodged on 7th September, 1982 at 9.45 a.m., the same was dispatched to the learned Magistrate the next day at 8.00 a.m., after an interval of one day. According to Mr. Ghosh, such delay spoke volumes of the manner in which the prosecution had built up its story, which in itself belied the prosecution case.

8. Mr. Ghosh then referred to the evidence of P.W.1, the alleged victim, where he has said that Krishna was holding the handle of the knife and Mongal took the other end and both of them touched his throat in order to kill him and that in order to prevent them from doing so, he resisted and as a result, the knife touched his left cheek causing injuries on his left cheek, as indicated hereinabove. Mr. Ghosh also referred to the cross- examination of P.W.1, wherein he had mentioned that he had caught hold of the knife with the palm of his left hand and had sustained cut injury, which was contrary to the injury report which shows that P.W.1 had not received any cut injury on his left hand and the injury that had been caused on his right palm was by a blunt instrument. Our attention was also drawn to the story made out by P.W.1 that after going to the hospital and 8 narrating the incident to the neighbours, he had left for home and in the early morning at about 4.00 a.m. along with P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.5, P.W.6 and one Maniruddin, he had gone to the Berhampore Police Station and after giving the statement he also deposited a knife with the police station. Mr. Ghosh drew our attention to the last portion of the cross-examination of P.W.1, wherein he stated that he had taken the knife which had been used to try and murder him to the hospital also. From the hospital, P.W.1 stated that he went home with the said knife, and, thereafter, in consultation with the neighbours and relations, he again went to the police station with the said knife and deposited the same at the police station at 9.45 a.m.

17. Having considered the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties and after going through the materials on record, we are inclined to accept Mr. Ghosh's submissions that the case made out by the prosecution appears to be improbable and the conviction of the appellants was not in conformity with the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution.

18. The main pillar of the prosecution case is P.W.1, Kashem Sk., the complainant himself. 14

20. Neither the Trial Court, nor the High Court, appears to have looked into these details properly. We, therefore, have no hesitation in setting aside the judgment of conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court and upheld by the High Court. 16

21. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed. The appellants be released forthwith.
R. Rajeshwari vs H.N. Jagadish

3. The aforementioned orders were passed in the following factual matrix :

4. Appellant filed a complaint petition against the respondent herein, inter alia, alleging that he had advanced a sum of Rs.4,35,000/-. For the purpose of repayment therefor, five cheques were issued. Three cheques were honoured but two were dishonoured. The subject matter of the complaint petition was a cheque issued by the respondent for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- which was presented to the bank on 15.9.1996. Appellant was informed in regard to the dishonour of the cheque on 28.9.1996. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, by a judgment and order dated 1.6.2000, found the respondent guilty for commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine of Rs.2,00,000/- and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. It was directed that out of the said amount of compensation, a sum of Rs.1,75,000/- may be paid to the appellant herein.

5. An appeal was preferred thereagainst and by a judgment and order dated 14.2.2003, the XXIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore City dismissed the criminal appeal preferred by the respondent herein, inter alia, holding :

14. The High Court, while disposing of the criminal revision filed by the respondents herein, passed a judgment merely modifying the order passed by the learned trial court, while directing the accused to pay a further sum of Rs.30,000/-. Apart from the sum of Rs.75,000/- deposited by him, he was directed to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- to the State. The order of conviction was not set aside.

15. In view of the aforementioned specific bar created in regard to exercise of the jurisdiction of the High Court to review its own order, we are of the opinion that ordinarily exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure would be unwarranted. We assume that in some rare cases, the High Court may do so where a judgment has been obtained from it by practicing fraud but it does not appear that such a case has been made out. Appellant did not make any complaint against his lawyer. She did not even implead her lawyer as a party. The affidavit affirmed in support of the application verified as under :

Verification of such an affidavit affirmed in support of an application containing serious allegations against a member of a profession is wholly unwarranted.

17. Submission of Mr. Bhat that in a situation of this nature where the complaint was in terms of the order of learned Trial Judge to receive a sum of Rs.1,75,000/-, the matter could not have been settled for a sum of Rs.1,05,000/- cannot be accepted.

18. We are, therefore, of the opinion that no case has been made out for interference with the impugned judgment. The appeal is dismissed accordingly. However, the appellant shall be at liberty to approach the concerned Bar Council or file an appropriate action against the lawyer concerned.
Santosh Ajit Sachdeva & Ors vs Anoopi Shahani

2. Brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of this appeal are as under:

3. Both the parties examined themselves with necessary witness and produced the documents. The trial court after considering the matter held that the plaintiff was not entitled to the decree for eviction. It is relevant to mention that Mr. Sachdeva expired and defendant No. 1 Smt. Santosh Ajit Sachdeva wife of Mr. Sachdeva became the tenant of plaintiff in respect of suit premises. As already mentioned above that M/s Pearl Advertisings is a proprietory concern of Shri Ajit Sachdeva. The defendant No. 3 M/s Impression Advertising Pvt. Ltd is the unlawful occupant in respect of suit premises. The case of the defendant was that her husband Ajit Sachdeva and she herself registered the Private Limited Company and were the Directors of the said company. During the life time of late Shri Sachdeva he also carried out the business in the name of M/s Impression Advertising and Marketing. Mr. Sachdeva died on 26th September, 1984 and thereafter defendant No. 1 was accepted as tenant by the plaintiff and the rent was being paid by the defendant No. 2 to the extent of Rs. 300/- and by M/s Impression Advertising and Marketing at Rs. 1000/- per month.

8. All other cases referred by learned counsel were also examined and we do not feel any need to refer any more of them. The theory of lifting the corporate veil has been accepted in certain circumstances which have already been referred by this Court in a series of decisions. However, so far as this case is concerned, as per the finding of fact recorded by the appellate court as well as by the High Court that the appellant-defendant has not been able to successfully prove that she is controlling the company, it was held by the appellate court that merely by holding a large number of shares is not sufficient but something more is required to prove that she is actually controlling and managing the business herself. That finding of the Appellate Court has been upheld by the High Court. Hence, in view of the concurrent finding of both the courts below, there is no reason for us to take a different view of the matter. Hence we do not find any merit in this appeal and accordingly the appeal stands dismissed. No order as to costs.
Larsen And Toubro Ltd & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors

1. This Special Leave Petition has been filed by M/s. Larsen and Toubro Ltd. and one Lt. Col. Ajay Bhatia (Retired), challenging the judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court on 8th September, 2010, dismissing Writ 2 Petition (Civil) No.3231 of 2010, filed by the Petitioners herein. In the Writ Petition, a prayer had, inter alia, been made for an appropriate writ, order or direction upon the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 to consider the bid of the Petitioner No.1 in response to Request For Proposal (RFP) No. TM (M)/0025/CG/FPV dated 17th June, 2009 and to invite the said Petitioner for negotiation, since the said bid was the lowest bid, and, thereafter, to accept the same in terms of the said RFP.

16. We, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the judgment and order of the High Court impugned in this Special Leave Petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.

17. There will be no order as to costs.
Chandan Kumar Basu vs State Of Bihar

2. The appellant, at the relevant point of time, was a member of the Indian Administrative Service and serving on deputation as the Administrator-cum-Managing Director of the Bihar State Housing Cooperative Federation Ltd. The aforesaid Federation is a society registered under the Bihar Cooperative Societies Act, 1935. On the basis of the various complaints made against the appellant, FIR Nos. 837/2002 dated 16.12.2002, 859/2002 and 860/2002 both dated 24.12.2002, 19/2003 dated 07.01.2003 and 41/2003 dated 18.01.2003 under Sections 409/420/467/468/ 471/34/120-B of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter for short ‘IPC’) were registered at Police Station Gardani Bagh (Shastri Nagar), Patna. On completion of investigation in all the cases, chargesheets were submitted before the competent court on the basis of which the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna took cognizance of the offences alleged against the appellant. Aggrieved, the appellant filed revision applications before the learned Sessions Judge, Patna challenging the orders passed by the learned Trial Court, primarily, on the ground that the said orders were without jurisdiction and incompetent in law inasmuch as sanction for prosecution of the appellant under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter for short ‘the Code’) was not obtained or granted prior to the date of taking of cognizance. The revision applications filed by the appellant were dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.2, Patna by orders of different dates. The said orders of the learned Additional Sessions Judge were challenged before the High Court of Patna in Crl. Misc. No. 3187/2011, 3190/2011, 3191/2011 and 3192/2011. The High Court by the common impugned order dated 27.11.2012 negatived the challenge made by the appellant leading to the present appeals. There is yet another proceeding instituted by the appellant before the High Court i.e. Crl. Misc. No. 41263/2010 in respect of P.S. Case No. 859/2002 which has been dismissed by the High Court by its order dated 18.07.2012 on the ground that the order taking cognizance by the learned Trial Court had not been specifically challenged before it and it is only the order of the learned Sessions Judge that has been assailed by the appellant. The aforesaid order dated 18.7.2012 of the High Court has also been challenged by the appellant in the present group of appeals.

10. In view of the discussions we will have no occasion to cause any interference with the orders passed by the High Court in the proceedings instituted before it by the appellant which have been impugned in the appeals under consideration. Consequently, we dismiss all the appeals and maintain the orders passed by the High Court in all the cases before it.
Kala Devi & Ors vs Bhagwan Das Chauhan & Ors

On 15.12.2003, Roshan Chauhan, husband of the appellant Kala Devi was travelling in a vehicle bearing No. HP-09A-0897(207 TATA), which was being driven by respondent No. 3 Keshav Ram. When they reached near Narla, Tehsil Theog, District Shimla, the vehicle got stuck due to snow surfaced road. Roshan and few others alighted and tried to push the vehicle. In the process of pushing the vehicle, suddenly the vehicle slipped and hit Roshan and went off the road. This lead to the death of Roshan and seriously injured others who later succumbed to the same.

4. The claimants i.e. the wife, 2 minor children and mother of the deceased filed a claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Shimla (in short ‘the Tribunal’) claiming Rs.12,96,000/- as compensation on the ground that the deceased was 25 years of age, a matriculate and a driver by vocation, earning Rs.9,000/- p.m. at the time of his death. The Tribunal took the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- p.m. for the purpose of quantifying loss of dependency of the appellants. 1/3rd of the monthly income was deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased. As the deceased was 25 years of age at the time of his death, therefore by applying the appropriate multiplier of 17, the compensation determined by the Tribunal towards the loss of dependency was arrived at Rs.4,08,000/-

(Rs.2,000 x 12 x 17). A sum of Rs.32,000/- was awarded towards conventional heads. Thus, a total compensation of Rs.4,40,000/- was awarded by the Tribunal with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. to the appellants.

12. In the result, the appellants shall be entitled to compensation under the following heads:

Thus, the total compensation payable to the appellants by the respondent- Insurance Company will be Rs.14,61,800/- with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the application till the date of payment. Accordingly, we allow this appeal in awarding Rs.14,61,800/- with interest @9% p.a. The compensation awarded shall be apportioned between the appellants equally with proportionate interest. The respondent-Insurance Company shall either pay by way of demand draft in favour of the appellants or deposit the same with interest as awarded by this Court, before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, after deducting the amount already paid to the appellants pursuant to the impugned Judgment and Award, if any, within six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment. No Costs.
Ranjit Singh vs State Of M. P

2. On 09th October 1994 at about .30 a.m., a First Information Report (FIR) was lodged by one Nagu, father of one of the deceased Bhanwar Lal and the cousin of the second deceased Ram Lal, before the Officer-in-charge of Maksi Police Station in relation to an incident which had taken place at village Merukheri at about 2 or 2.30 a.m. on the said date. The prosecution case appears to be that `Sagai' ceremony had been performed for marriage of the appellant herein with Sitabai, P.W.16. However, her father refused to solemnize the said marriage as he had learnt that Ranjit was already married. Sitabai was married to Bhanwarlal. `Bidai' ceremony took place a few days prior to the date of incident. In the FIR, it was stated by P.W.3- Nagu, that as Sitabai (P.W.16) was not keeping well she slept with his wife Kamlabai and daughter Sultantabai whereas Bhanwar Lal was sleeping in the next room. At about 2 or 2.30 a.m. on the intervening night of 8/9th October 1994, accused no 1. Sidhnath, his son Ranjit, the appellant herein and some other persons knocked at the door of the first informant. On the door bein opened, the first informant was asked by the accused in regard to the whereabouts of Bhanwar Lal to which he replied that he was outside the house. Then, they shouted calling Bhanwar Lal and when he came out, he was assaulted with swords and `pharsi' by the accused persons. Ram Lal, his cousin came out to protect Bhanwar Lal whereupon he was also assaulted with swords and `pharsi'. As a result of the assault, both of them died on the spot. Accusd thereafter fled away. P.W.16 Sitabai, however, stated that apart from Sidhnath and the appellant, a few more persons took part in the incident. Upon conclusion of investigation, altogether six persons were sent for trial for offence under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Before the learned Sessions Judge, apart from other witnesses, P.W.3-Nagu, P.W.4-Kamla Bai, P.W.5-Teju Bai (wife of deceased Ram Lal) and P.W.16-Sita Bai (wife of deceased Bhanwar Lal) were examined as eye witnesses. The learned Trial Judge believed the statements of all the eye witnesses. He held the named accused Sidhnath, Ranjit as also Jagdish, i.e., accused nos.1,2 and 4 respectively had committed the offence of murder of deceased Bhanwar Lal and Ram Lal. During the pendency of the trial, Jagdish and Sidhnath died. The learned Trial Judge held at the only surviving accused, viz., the appellant herein, guilty of commission of the offence under Section 302 and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.

10. As the prosecution has been able to prove its case by bringing on record the evidence of at least three eye witnesses, who are the members of the family of the deceased, we are of the opinion that there is no merit in this appeal which is dismissed accordingly.
C.B.I vs V.K. Bhutiani

Thirdly, that in furtherance of aforesaid conspiracy you accused O.P. Rajvanshi forged on receipt dated 20.12.89 for Rs. 4,35,000/- purporting to have been issued by M/s. Hazi Gudar S. Abdul Kareen in favour of M/s. Vikram Enterprises and you also forged one letter dated 17.12.1989 purporting to have been written by M/s. Hazi Gudar S. Abdul Kareem to Vikram Enterprises for using the same for cheating New Bank of India by obtaining loan of Rs. 17.20 lacs and you also used these forged documents dishonestly and fraudulently and 3 thereby you committed an offence punishable under Sections 467/468/471 IPC.

Fourthly, that in furtherance of the aforesaid conspiracy you accused Parveen Aggarwal forged on invoice dated 15.12.89 for Rs. 2.30 lacs purporting to have been issued by M/s. Multiple Traders, proprietorship concern of your co-accused Rashmi Aggarwal, in the name of Vikram Enterprises for being used for the purpose of cheating New Bank of India by obtaining loan of Rs. 17.20 lacs in the name of Vikram Enterprises, firm of you co-accused O.P. Rajvanshi and you also forged a receipt of Rs. 1 lac for the same purpose purporting to have been issued by Multiple Traders in favour of M/s. Vikram Enterprises and these documents were then used for cheating New Bank of India and thereby you committed an offence punishable under Sections 467/468/471 IPC.

2. The Revision Petition was basically on the ground that the respondent, who was a Senior Manager of the New Bank of India at the relevant time, was in fact exonerated by the Central Vigilance Commission and in its report, he was found to be innocent. The charges, which we have quoted above, were extremely serious and included also the charge of conspiracy with a view to defraud the bank. In the process, it is apparent from the charge that the respondent along with other co-accused had entered into a criminal conspiracy to defraud the bank by granting the loans which should never have been granted. The allegation is regarding the securities which have been accepted against those loans were worthless. It has also come on record that that the loans were never repaid.

15. We do not find any such reasoning having been given in the present case by the High Court. On the other hand, a perusal of the impugned order suggests that the High Court did not examine the 9 material available by way of charge-sheet and has proceeded to follow the ruling of P.S. Rajya (supra). We are, therefore, satisfied that this appeal has to be allowed by setting-aside the impugned order passed by the High Court. Accordingly, the appeal succeeds. The impugned order is set-aside and the matter is remanded. Now the trial court shall proceed with the trial since the charges have already been framed. All the contentions in law and fact shall be available to the respondent as well as the prosecution. This judgment shall not be treated to be an expression of opinion on our part.
Commissionr Of Income Tax Iv Ahmedabad vs Shree Rama Multi Tech. Ltd.

1) The   present   appeal   has   been   preferred   against   the impugned final judgment and order dated 18.12.2012 passed by the High Court of Gujarat in Tax Appeal No. 235 of 2012 whereby the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue­the appellant herein against the judgment and order   dated   21.10.2011   passed   by   the   Income   Tax   Appellate Tribunal (in short ‘The Tribunal”) in ITA No.1039/Ahd./2007 and ITA No. 240/Ahd./2008.

2) Brief facts:­

a) The   Respondent   ­   M/s.   Shree   Rama   Multi   Tech   Ltd.   is engaged   in   the   manufacture   of   multi­layer   tubes   and   other specialty   packaging   and   plastic   products.   The   dispute   in   the present case relates to Assessment Years 1999­2000, 2000­2001 and 2001­2002. The Respondent filed its return of income for the Assessment   Year   2000­2001   declaring   a   total   income   of   Rs 20,00,59,650/­. However, the Assessing Officer, vide order dated 31.03.2003, passed an order of assessment assessing the taxable income at Rs 27,61,14,254/­. But the same came to be modified in light of the decision given by the Tribunal dated 16.12.2004 in ITA No. 1481/Ahd./2004 and ITA No. 1685/Ahd./2004 wherein the Tribunal has directed for re­adjudication on certain matters including that of set­off as claimed under the head of interest on share application money.   In pursuance of the Order passed by the   Tribunal   dated   16.12.2004,   the   total   income   was   re­ determined at Rs. 17,30,88,691/­ by the Assessing Officer vide order dated 29.12.2004 but was restricted to 20,00,59,650/­ in 2 view   of   proviso   to   Section   240(b)   of   Income   Tax   Act,   1961   (in short ‘the IT Act’).

14) The appeals are accordingly dismissed. The parties to bear their own cost.

APRIL  24, 2018.
Bharat Parikh vs C.B.I. And Anr

4. The appellant herein is the original accused No.5 in a special case pending before the learned Special Judge, Mumbai in which charge was framed against him and the other accused persons on 13th December, 1996 under Sections 120-B read with Sections 420, 468, 471, 477-A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d)of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Though such charge had been framed against the appellant on 13th December, 1996, after about five years an 3 application was made on behalf of the appellant in 2001, before the Special Court seeking directions for production of certain documents in the custody of the prosecution. By order dated 27th August, 2001, the said application was allowed and the prosecution was directed to produce all the documents referred to in the statement of one Mr. P.K.R.K. Menon made on 24th February, 1993. The said documents were ultimately produced in 2002. Thereafter, the appellant filed an application for re-opening the proceedings and for discharge, which was rejected by the learned Special Judge by his order dated 1st April, 2006.

17. Accordingly, no interference is warranted with the orders passed by the learned special Judge or the High Court, and the appeal is, therefore, dismissed.