L-NLProc/TathyaNyaya-and-FactLegalLlama-NyayaScrape-Datasets huggingface dataset:
State Of Punjab vs Surjit Singh & Anr

3. On 11.7.2000, Assistant Sub Inspector Vijay Kumar along with other police officials was on patrol duty in the area of village Nagra. Karnail Singh independent witness met them there and he was joined in the police party. Thereafter, they proceeded towards Village Akberpura. When they reached near the bridge of minor canal, then the respondents were seen sitting on the gunny bags. On seeing the police party, they succeeded in running away. However, they were identified by Kashmir Singh, Head Constable and Baljit Singh, Head Constable.

4. Assistant Sub Inspector Vijay Kumar sent wireless message to Raj Bachan Sandhu, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sangrur to reach at the spot and under his directions Assistant Sub Inspector Vijay Kumar conducted search of the bags. On search, the bags were found to contain poppy husk. The bags were four in number. Two samples of 250 grams each of poppy husk were taken from each of the bags. The remainder in each bag was found to be 29.500 kilograms. The samples and the remaining poppy husk in the four bags were separately sealed with the seal of `VK' and seal after use was handed over to Karnail Singh. They were taken into possession vide memo Ex.PA attested by the witnesses.

5. Assistant Sub Inspector Vijay Kumar sent ruqa Ex.PE, to the police station for registration of the case, on the basis of which formal first information report Ex.PA/1 was recorded by Assistant Sub Inspector Surjit Singh. He prepared rough site plan, Ex.PF, with correct marginal notes. On return, he produced the case property and witnesses before the Station House Officer Amit Joshi, who after verifying the facts, put his own seal bearing impression "AJ", and then on his clarifications, Assistant Sub Inspector Vijay Kumar deposited the case property with Mahar Head Constable Jaswinder Singh.

9. The High Court set aside the judgment of conviction, as recorded by the learned trial Judge, solely on the ground that only official witnesses were examined and no independent witness was examined. Prosecution during trial made a statement before the Court that Karnail Singh was not being examined as he had been won over. The High Court held that the evidence of the official witnesses was not sufficient to record conviction. Even if the aforesaid Karnail Singh had been won over, the prosecution should have examined him. With these conclusions, the appeal was allowed and the acquittal was directed.

14. The appeal is allowed.
Rajasthan Public Service Commission vs Kaila Kumar Paliwal & Anr

2. Respondents herein were Laboratory Assistants in the Government High Schools. They were appointed on or about 24.1.1992 to the said posts. They worked in the post of Teacher Grade-III from 13.10.1997.

3. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission (for short as "Commission") issued an advertisement on or about 7.3.2002 for the posts of Headmaster of Secondary Schools. The minimum qualification and other conditions laid down therefor in terms of Rajasthan Educational Service Rules, 1970 are as under:

9. The services of the teachers working in the schools in the State of Rajasthan are governed by the Rajasthan Educational Service Rules, 1970 and Rajasthan Education (Subordinate Services) Rules, 1971. Subordinate service consists of the posts as specified in the schedule appended thereto. A Teacher Grade-III as also a Laboratory Assistant come within the purview of the term 'subordinate services'. The minimum qualification for holding the post of a Teacher Grade-III is Matriculation with certificate of training, whereas that of Laboratory Assistant is Secondary with Science as an optional subject.

16. It is, therefore, evident that Public Service Commission which is an expert body upon obtaining opinion from other experts came to the conclusion that for the purpose of appointment to the post of Head Master of a Secondary School, whether by way of direct recruitment or promotion, qualifications requisite for a candidate as in the post of Teacher Grade-III are not sufficient.
M/S B.G. Shirke Construction ... vs The Addl. Commissioner Of Commercial ...

Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

The assessing authority, after considering the objection of the assessee, came to the conclusion that the nature of the business activity carried on by the assessee is not one of manufacturing or processing of goods for sale and, therefore, it has contravened the specified conditions under the notification. Accordingly, he raised a demand of an amount equal to the difference between the tax payable and tax paid amounting to Rs.10,71,745/- and also penalty amounting to Rs.18,00,531/- as envisaged under Section 8A(5)(a) of the Act.

Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the assessee carried the matter in an appeal before the first appellate authority. The said authority allowed the appeal and set aside the orders passed by the assessing authority, on the ground that the assessee satisfied all the conditions prescribed in the notification and, therefore, was entitled to take the benefit of the notification issued by the State Government dated 31.3.1994.
B.K. Muniraju vs State Of Karnataka & Ors

3) Brief facts:

The Assistant Commissioner dropped the proceedings on the ground that the alienation is after the expiry period of ten years of non-alienation clause and hence the sale transaction is not in violation of the condition governing grant and, therefore, it does not attract the provisions of Section 4(1) of the Act. Against the said order, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner which was also dismissed. Thereafter, the appellant approached the High Court by filing Writ Petition No. 11821 of 1987 and the High Court allowed the said petition and remanded the matter to the Assistant Commissioner for fresh disposal. The High Court, in its order, directed the Assistant Commissioner to examine the original Saguvali chit besides the original records relating to grant proceedings to the land in question and then decide whether or not the provisions of the Act are attracted to the facts of the case and whether the prohibition or alienation has been violated by the grantee. Based on the said direction of the High Court, the Assistant Commissioner heard the matter afresh. Finally, the Assistant Commissioner dismissed the matter holding that the land in question is not a "granted land" but was purchased by Motappa in public auction and hence, the Act is not applicable. It was also held that the auction purchaser does not come under the Rules relating to the grant and there is no violation of the conditions of the grant. Questioning the said order of the Assistant Commissioner, the appellant herein preferred an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner who also dismissed the appeal holding that the land granted at an upset price is alienated after a period of ten years of non-alienation condition period, that the land granted at an upset price, did not attract the provisions of Section 4(1) of the Act. The Deputy Commissioner also held that the Saguvali chit issued in Form No.1 indicates that the land was allotted to Motappa in public auction at an upset price of Rs.408.12.

5) Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Deputy Commissioner, the appellant filed Writ Petition No. 809 of 2000 before the High Court. The main grievance of the appellant before the learned single Judge was that the land was granted under the Mysore Land Revenue Rules and not a land sold at public auction. It was contended that insofaras the "granted lands" are concerned, there was a total prohibition from alienating the land as per the Rules that were prevailing at the time of grant in question. However, the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition and the writ appeal filed by the appellant herein was also dismissed by the Division Bench which is impugned in this appeal.

18) In the result, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs.
Mahabir Singh vs Subhash & Ors

3. Appellant filed a civil suit on or about 6.4.1985. Summons of the suit were served upon the first respondent. He did not appear. An ex parte decree was passed against him on 19.2.1986. An application for mutation on the basis thereof was filed which was allowed on 07.03.1996. Allegedly, the first respondent having come to know about passing of the said ex parte decree on 03.02.1997, filed an application on 07.02.1997 for setting aside the same, in terms of Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The learned Trial Judge, by reason of an order dated 28.07.2000, dismissed the said application, inter alia, holding that summons had been duly served upon the first respondent. It was furthermore noticed that the first respondent herein, while examining himself in the said proceedings under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure in his cross-examination, admitted that one and a half year prior to filing of the said application, he and his brother approached Dharam Singh for getting the judgment and decree set aside but he negated their plea.

4. An appeal was preferred thereagainst. The Appellate Court also affirmed the said finding holding :

10. For the reasons aforementioned, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained. It is set aside accordingly. The appeal is allowed with costs. The counsels fee assessed at Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only).
Kishan Lal vs Dharmendra Bafna & Anr

3. Indisputably, on or about 30th December 2005, a complaint was lodged by the appellant against Accused Nos. 1 to 9, namely, Lakshmichand Bafna (Accused No.1), Dharmendra Bafna (Accused No.2), Mahendar Bafna (Accused No.3), Rakesh Bafna (Accused No.4), G.R. Surana (Accused No.5), Shantilal Surana (Accused No.6), Vijayaraj Surana (Accused No.7), Dinesh Chand Surana (Accused No.8) and Maran (Accused No.9) before the Commissioner of Police, Chennai City, Chennai inter alia alleging that they connived together from the beginning and cheated him a sum of Rs.4.65 crores by denying to return the money which was given to them for purchase of gold. It was alleged that the amount was entrusted on various dates from 06th October 2005 to 17th November 2005. Although they have admitted the liability to the extent of 4.95 crores, but did not return either any gold or money to the complainant.

4. On or about 12th January 2006, an application for grant of anticipatory bail before the High Court of Madras was filed by all the accused stating that the Accused Nos. 5 to 8 are brothers and are the directors of their family business known as M/s Surana Corporation Limited. It was admitted that 3 the Accused No.2 is the sub-agent of Surana Corporation Limited who introduces investors.

Allegedly, on or about 27th January 2006, in the aforementioned bail application, the said accused filed statement of accounts of the appellant/de facto complainant mentioned in the Multi Commodity Exchange of India Limited ("MCX") which is a Government approved On-Line Trading Exchange of Bullion, Energy, Metal and Oil, admitting that they had undertaken bullion trade with MCX by using the appellant's money.

Apart from the said FIR, the parties have filed some Civil Suits also. Indisputably, however, Banwarlal Sharma (Accused No.10) was subsequently added. It is furthermore not in dispute that the investigation was transferred to CBCID, Chennai by the Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu.

10. An order of further investigation can be made at various stages including the stage of the trial, that is, after taking cognizance of the offence.

13. It is correct that the revisional court should not interfere with the discretionary jurisdiction exercised by the learned Magistrate unless a jurisdictional error or an error of law is noticed.

14. For the reasons aforementioned, we do not find any merit in this appeal. The appeal is dismissed accordingly.

July 21, 2009
Kalappa Gangappa Pagi vs Divisional Manager, Nat. Ins. Co. Ltd

The appellant herein, on a claim petition filed by him in respect of an accident which took place on 17.11.2002, was awarded a sum of Rs. 2,92,350/- by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. The respondent - National Insurance Company preferred an appeal thereagainst before the High Court. By reason of the impugned judgment, the amount of compensation has been reduced to Rs. 1,56,600/-.

While doing so, the High Court has not assigned any reason, whatsoever, as to on what basis the said judgment was passed. -2- We, therefore, are of the opinion that the appeal preferred by the respondent herein in terms of Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 should be considered afresh on merit and the High Court should pass a reasoned judgment.

The impugned judgment is, therefore, set aside and the matter is remitted to the High Court for consideration of the appeal afresh on merit.

The appeal is allowed with the aforementioned observation. As nobody has appeared on behalf of the appellant, there shall be no order as to costs.
Asraf Alli vs M/S Naveen Hotels Ltd. & Anr

3. Appellant was aged 15 years when he met with an accident on 14.9.1998 as a result whereof he sustained serious injuries and suffered permanent disability to the extent of 70% of his left lower limb which had to be amputated.

4. An appeal was preferred thereagainst by the owner of the vehicle, i.e., Respondent No.1 and Respondent No.2 jointly. Later on, however, the Respondent No.1 was relegated to the position of the respondent in the said appeal.

15 years, the proper multiplier as reported in ILR 1996 Kar. on page No.2127 will be 18. Hence, Rs.25,200/- x 18 = Rs.4,53,600/- and that will be net loss of earnings and I award that amount for the same."

Injuries deemed to result in Permanent Total Disablement/Permanent Partial Disablement and percentage of loss of earning capacity shall be as per Schedule I under Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923."

10. However, if the Second Schedule appended to the Act is to be applied, the correct multiplier in the case of the appellant, he being aged about 15 years, was 15 and not 18.

In that view of the matter, the total amount of compensation payable to the appellant under the head `loss of future earning capacity' would be Rs.3,24,000/- (Rupees three lac twenty four thousand only), the annual income being Rs.21,600/- and the multiplier being 15.

12. The appeal is allowed to the aforementioned extent. In the facts and circumstances of the case, however, there shall be no order as to costs.

December 19, 2008
Food Corporation Of India & Anr vs M/S. Seil Ltd. & Ors

J U D G M E N T CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 370 OF 2008 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.5599 of 2006) With CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 372 and 371 OF 2008 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.7316 and 7666 of 2006) S.B. Sinha, J.

3. Respondents herein received allotment letters for supply of sugar both to FCI as also UPPCF. Claims were lodged for the price of levy sugar both with the FCI as also the Directorate of Sugar, Ministry of Food. The Central Government sanctioned the claim of the respondent in respect of the sugar supplied to UPPCF. It made similar claim in respect of the sugar supplied to the appellant. Appellant, however, demanded for a no dues certificate. It raised other objections including weight and quality of the sugar in relation to the supplies made to the Central Government. Respondents contended that no complaint having been made by the Central Government in this connection, the action of the appellant was totally unjustified. We may, however, notice that withholding of payment was, inter alia, made by the appellant for the alleged shortages in supply of sugar during the period 1983 to 1995.

4. Respondents filed writ applications before the High Court of Delhi. A learned Single Judge of the said Court classified the cases into two categories; (1) supplies made to the State Government, the Central Government; and their other agencies in respect whereof the appellant only had the authority to make payment, and (2) supplies made to the appellant.

5. So far as the supplies made to the Central Government and other agencies are concerned, it was held that a direction for making the payment should be made but in respect of the supplies made to the appellant; any resolution setting the controversy was held to be impermissible in a writ proceeding therefor and the respondents were relegated to the remedy of a civil suit for recovery of respect of the amount claimed by them.

18. We, however, although agree with the opinion of the Division Bench of the High Court on the legal principle in regard to payment of interest, as has been enunciated by it, having regard to the fact that the respondents did not prefer any appeal, are of the opinion that increase in the rate of interest, as has been directed by the Division Bench, cannot be upheld.

19. We, therefore, in modification of the order passed by the Division Bench, direct that the appellant would pay the amount in question with interest as awarded by the learned Single Judge of the High Court.

20. Subject to above, the appeals are dismissed. Respondents are also entitled to costs quantified at Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) in each case.
Saberabibi Yakubbhai Shaikh & Ors vs National Ins.Co.Ltd.& Ors

3. The appellants are the wife and the relatives of deceased driver who died in a road accident. The deceased driver was driving a truck bearing No. GJ-17-T-8607, which was owned by Yunusbhai Gulambhai Shaikh, respondent No.2 herein. The deceased was 36 years of age at the time of the accident. On 20th November, 1996, the appellants raised a claim of compensation for a sum of Rs.2,15,280/- and 12% interest therein from the date of accident by filing a claim application before the Workmen Compensation Commissioner/Labour Court. After passage of more than 16 years, the wife and children of the deceased driver had still not received any compensation.

4. The appellants filed a compensation application before the Workmen Compensation Commissioner/Labour Court on 20th November, 1996. The appellants made a claim of Rs.2,15,280/- and also penalty to the tune of 50% of the compensation i.e. a sum of Rs.1,07,640/-, thus, making the grand total of Rs.3,22,920/-. Respondent No.1- the Insurance Company, contested the compensation application. On 23th December, 2010, the learned Commissioner awarded compensation on account of death in the sum of Rs.2,13,570/- with 12% interest from the date of accident. The learned Commissioner also awarded Rs.1,06,785/- as penalty.

6. By judgment and order, dated 24th January, 2012, the High Court has partly allowed the First Appeal. The High Court directed the respondent No.1 - Insurance Company to pay interest on the amount of compensation from the date of ...3/-

8. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of the Hgh Court, the appellants have filed the present appeal.

12. In view of the aforesaid settled proposition of law, the appeal is allowed and the judgment and order of the High Court is set aside. The appellants shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 12% from the date of the accident.

13. No cost.

(FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA) NEW DELHI JANUARY 02, 2014
Ram Murti Yadav vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh

The appellant, a judicial officer of the rank of Additional District and Sessions Judge, assails his order of compulsory retirement dated 03.05.2016 at 56 years of age under Rule 56 (C) of the U. P. Fundamental Rules (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’).

2. The appellant while posted as a Chief Judicial Magistrate granted acquittal to the accused on 17.09.2007 in Criminal Case No.4670 of 2005 “State vs. Mohd. Ayub” under Sections 467, 468, 1 471, 474, 420, 406 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. A complaint was lodged against the appellant with regard to the acquittal. After calling for comments from the appellant, and perusing the judgement and the order of reversal in appeal, the Administrative Judge on 24.02.2009 recommended an enquiry. A vigilance enquiry, V.B. Enquiry No.26/2009, was held by the OSD, Enquiry, High Court of Allahabad. The enquiry report dated 10.05.2012 was adverse to the appellant. His comments were called for on 28.06.2012. On 20.12.2012, the appellant was informed that on basis of the enquiry, a censure entry had been recorded in his character roll. The order of punishment was accepted by the appellant without any challenge. On 01.04.2016, a committee of three Hon’ble Judges constituted for screening of judicial officers for compulsorily retirement under the Rules recommended the compulsory retirement of the appellant which was endorsed by the Full Court on 14.04.2016 leading to the impugned order of compulsory retirement. The challenge laid out by the appellant to his order of retirement before the High Court was unsuccessful and thus the present appeal.

15. In conclusion, we are of the considered opinion that the order of compulsory retirement of the appellant calls for no interference. The Appeal is dismissed.
Commnr. Of Central Excise vs M/S. Wockhardt Life Science Ltd

Accordingly, had confirmed the show cause notices issued earlier and, thereby, had directed the assessee to pay the difference in duty and also the penalty.

7. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by the 4 adjudicating authority, the assessee had carried the matter in appeal before the First Appellate Authority, who by his order dated 29.11.2001 had sustained the order passed by the adjudicating authority. According to the appellate authority, since the product in question is mainly used as a cleansing solution, the proper classification would be as a detergent and would fall under tariff entry 3402.90.

After the skin area is shaved, wet it with water. Apply Povidone Iodine surgical scrub on the skin and scrub, thoroughly for about 5 minutes. Rinse off by aid of sterile gauze saturated with water. Now paint the skin with Povidone-Iodine solution and allow to dry before incision."

heading 3003.10.

44. In view of the above, we reject the Revenue's appeals and confirm the order passed by the Tribunal with no order as to costs.

Ordered accordingly.

FEBRUARY 22, 2012 37
Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur vs Om Prakash Dubey

Respondent herein was one of the six petitioners in Writ Petition No.4739 of 1998, which was also disposed of together with other writ applications pending before the High Court. A contempt petition came to be filed by the respondent herein alone, although, as noticed hereinbefore, the scheme involved a large number of workmen who were parties before the High Court. The said contempt petition was filed, inter alia, on the premise that the Corporation had been making discrimination amongst the employees in the matter of regularisation of their services. By reason of the impugned judgment dated 18.8.2005, having regard to the submissions made before it on behalf of the parties, the High Court directed :

Recently in R. v. Serumaga [2005 (2) All ELR 160], it was opined :

{See also Modi Telefibres Ltd. & Ors. vs. Sujit Kumar Choudhary & Ors. [2005 (7) SCC 40] and see also Vivek Sarin vs. Multi Metal Udyog [(2005) 11 SCC 495].} We, therefore, for the reasons aforementioned, are unable to uphold the impugned order which is accordingly set aside. The appeal is allowed with the aforementioned observations and directions. No costs.