L-NLProc/TathyaNyaya-and-FactLegalLlama-NyayaScrape-Datasets huggingface dataset:
State Of Haryana & Ors vs M/S.Mahabir Vegetable Oils Pvt. Ltd

3. The basic facts which are not in dispute, are as follows:-

9. On or about 28-5-1997 the said Rules were amended inter alia by omitting Note 2 deeming to have always been omitted.

12. It is only after the notice dated 3.1.1996 that the respondent Mahabir Vegetable Oils (P) Limited purchased land measuring 30 kanals 17 marlas in the month of August 1996 to set up a solvent extraction plant. It also obtained registration under the provisions of the Act and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 on 6-9-1996. On 13-8- 1996 it applied for a no-objection certificate from the Haryana State Pollution Control Board which is a condition precedent for setting up a solvent extraction plant. On 15-8-1996, the appellant entered into an agreement with M/s Saratech Consultants and Engineers, Karnal for supply and erection of the plant for a sum of Rs. 55,55,000.00 and Rs 22,75,000 respectively and advances were paid on different dates.

15. However this Court, at that stage, did not interfere with the issue of the quantum of exemption which can be granted to the Respondent and the said issue was kept open and the matter was remanded to the Director Industries for fresh adjudication. The Writ Petition filed by the Respondent under Article 32 was also disposed off. The relevant portion of the said judgment is as follows:-

29. The Note 2, appended to the amendment made to Schedule III (extracted hereinabove), categorically state that the industrial units in which investment has been made up to 25% of the anticipated cost of the project and which have been included in the above list for the first time shall be entitled to the sales tax benefits related to the extent of investment made up to 3-1-1996. On or about 28-5-1997 the said Rules were amended 35 inter alia by omitting Note 2 deeming to have always been omitted.

33. Accordingly, we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment passed by the High Court leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

............................................J [Dr. Mukundakam Sharma ] 39 .......................................J [ Anil R. Dave ] New Delhi, February 21, 2011.
Lt. Gen. Ravi Dastane Avsm Vsm vs Union Of India Ministry Of Defence ...

Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J 1 By the present appeal1, Lieutenant General Ravi Dastane has questioned the correctness of a judgment dated 6 September 2013 of the Principal Bench of the Armed Forces Tribunal2. The AFT rejected his challenge to the selection of Lieutenant General Dalbir Singh, GOC-in-C, Eastern Command and Lieutenant General Sanjiv Chachra, GOC-in-C, Northern Command as Army Commanders. After the decision of the AFT, Lieutenant General Dalbir Singh (the third respondent) was appointed as Chief of Army Staff3 and retired from service on 31 December 2016. Lieutenant General Chachra retired from service on 31 May 2014. The appellant retired from service on 30 September 2014.

12 Pleadings were completed before the AFT. On 6 September 2013, the AFT dismissed the OA on the ground that the decision to appoint the third and fourth respondents as Army Commanders was made on the basis of a comparative study of merit of all the officers in the zone of consideration and that no prejudice was caused to 6 OA No. 426 of 2012 4 the appellant. The AFT held that the ACC approved the appointment of the third and fourth respondents as Army Commanders following the recommendation of the Ministry of Defence and that the procedure stipulated for appointments to the post was duly followed. The AFT held thus:

30 The appeal shall, accordingly, stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

March 01, 2019 16
Subhash Chandra & Anr vs Delhi Subordinate Ser.Sel.Board & Ors

4. The background facts involving filing of this appeal are as follows :

11. The Government of National Capital Territory having been served with a notice in the said writ application filed a counter affidavit contending, inter alia, that the notification involved two sets of castes/categories certificate' one in relation to the original inhabitants and the other relating to the migrants and stating :

(vii) Migrants from other States who are members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in their State must be allowed to take the benefit of the said status particularly those who had been residing in Delhi for a period of more than five years and those who are born and brought up in Delhi.

The impugned legislation being contrary to the above constitutional scheme cannot, therefore, be sustained."

Indisputably, the classes contemplated by Article 16(4) may be wider than those contemplated by Article 15(4). If they are backward classes for the purpose of Article 16(1) and 16(4) and not Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, they will come within the purview of the reservation for backward classes and not the one which is exclusively meant for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes within the purview of reservation policy of the States.

We are of the opinion that in respect of the following categories of cases, the said test may be applied:

8. Where a statute prima facie seeks to interfere with sovereignty and integrity of India.

Following Dayanand (supra), therefore, we are of the opinion that the dicta in Pushpa is an obiter and does not lay down any binding ratio.

47. For the reasons aforementioned, the impugned judgments cannot be sustained which are set aside accordingly. The appeal and the writ petition are allowed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no orders as to costs.

August 04, 2009
United Bank Of India vs Pijush Kanti Nandy & Ors

3. The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute. Respondent No.1 herein joined his services in the appellant bank as MMG Scale-II. On or about 13.2.1989, he sought voluntary retirement in terms of Regulation 19 of the Regulations. The Bank accepted his offer vide its letter dated 8.5.1989. Respondent No.1 was allowed to take voluntary retirement w.e.f. 31.5.1989.

6. The respondent voluntarily retired from the services of the Bank as far back as on 31.5.1989 as has been noticed by us hereinbefore. He claimed the benefit of pension which was introduced by reason of a Regulation known as United Bank of India (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995. The Regulations were published in the Official Gazette on 29.9.1995 and in terms of clause (2) of regulation 1, they were to come into force on the said date.

Provided further that this sub-regulation shall not apply to an employee who seeks retirement from service for being absorbed permanently in an autonomous body or a public sector undertaking or company or institution or body, whether incorporated or not to which he is on deputation at the time of seeking voluntary retirement;

13. Contention of Mr. Mehta is that the said word only takes within its purview those classes of cases which are noticed in Chapter IV of the Regulations and not for the purpose of extending the period of qualifying service. We agree. Service may not be actually rendered but must be otherwise rendered. This presupposes that the relationship of employer and employee must continue at all relevant times.

We are not concerned with such a case.

We respectfully agree with the view expressed therein.

21. For the reasons aforementioned, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained, it is set aside accordingly. The appeal is allowed. However, in the facts and circumstances of this case, there shall be no order as to costs.

August 4, 2009
S.G. Barapatre vs Ananta Gajanan Gaiki

4. Some of the appellants are parties before the High Court. The appellants had declined to subject themselves to caste scrutiny and, therefore, pursuant to the directions of the High Court their services are to be discontinued and their payments or dues are Digitally signed by NARENDRA PRASAD Date: 2018.10.13 not to be released. The High Court further directed 11:31:53 IST Reason: to recover the payments already made. The relevant 1 paragraphs are set out below:-

7. The Employer, namely, Food Corporation of India challenged that order and filed special leave petition(s) before this Court, which was dismissed by order dated 12.04.2013. Review Petition(s) was also attempted and the same was also dismissed by order dated 26.02.2014.

8. Therefore, the said judgment qua the employees, who were parties to those writ petitions have become final. The benefits which have been granted, as per the judgment specifically referred to in paragraph 18 of the judgment, which is extracted above, cannot be taken away in collateral proceedings.

9. We make it clear that the employees covered by the said judgment shall only be entitled to the benefits which have been granted specifically in paragraph 18 of the judgment referred to above. For all purposes, those people will get themselves arrayed in the general category as on 28.11.2000 and placed below the last of the general category candidate as on that date.

10. The impugned orders will stand modified to the above extent. The appeals are, accordingly, disposed of.

11. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.

12. There shall be no orders as to costs.

OCTOBER 10, 2018.
Prabhudas Damodar Kotecha & Ors vs Manharbala Jeram Dmodar & Anr

6. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 along with other plaintiffs (who are now deceased) filed a suit L.E. and C. No.430/582 of 1978 under Section 41 of the PSCC Act before the Small Causes Court, Bombay against the appellants (original defendants) for recovery and vacant possession of one bed room in Flat No.16, Ram Mahal, Churchgate, Mumbai and also for other consequential reliefs. Plaintiffs submitted that the defendants were in use and in occupation of the above premises as their guest-house and so far as hall and kitchen are concerned, family members of the plaintiff and defendants were using it as common amenities. The plaintiffs also claim that they are in occupation of another bed-room in the suit flat and no monetary consideration was charged by them from the defendants for exclusive use and occupation of one bed-room and joint use of the hall and kitchen as common amenities. Permission granted to the defendants to use the premises was later revoked and since they did not vacate the suit flat and continued to hold possession wrongfully and illegally, suit was filed for eviction.

7. The Small Causes Court decreed the suit on 07.02.1997 and ordered eviction of the appellants with a specific finding that they are gratuitous licensee. The appellants preferred an appeal before the Appellate Bench of Small Causes Court, which was dismissed on 05.04.2003. Against that order both the appellants and respondents filed writ petitions before the High Court, Bombay and the respondents’ writ petition was for claiming mesne profits.

30. We are primarily concerned with the condition nos. (i) and (iii) and if we hold that both the above conditions are satisfied, then Small Causes Courts will have the jurisdiction to entertain the suit in question, provided the expression “licensee” means and include “gratuitous licensee” also. In that context, we have also to examine whether the expression “licensee” in Section 41(1) of the PSCC Act would mean only “licensee” within the meaning of sub-section (4A) of Section 5 of the Rent Act 1947.

Contemporenea Expositio

Licensor – Licensee

ONE UMBERALLA POLICY

53. We are, therefore, in complete agreement with the reasoning of the Full Bench of the High Court. In such circumstances, the appeals lack merits and are, therefore, dismissed. There is no order as to costs.
Gaddam Ramulu . vs Joint Collector And Ors.

2. A few relevant facts need mention infra for disposal of these appeals.

4. One Mr. Gaddam Durgaiah held the suit land as a protected tenant under the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) on certain conditions. On his death, his sons (appellants herein) inherited the suit land. It was, however, noticed that the appellants, contrary to the purpose for which the suit land was allotted to them i.e. cultivation, transferred it to several persons who made construction thereon.

6. The appellants felt aggrieved and filed an appeal before the Joint Collector, Adilabad. By order dated 20.06.1998, the Joint Collector dismissed the appeal and held as under:

In view of the above, I do not find reason to interfere with the orders of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Mancherial order dated 6.10.90 and the appeal is dismissed.”

7. The appellants felt aggrieved by the order dated 20.06.1998 and filed a revision petition in the High Court. By impugned order, the High Court dismissed the revision petition and review petition also, which has given rise to filing of the present appeals by way of special leave by the appellants in this Court.

13. In our view, a clear case of contravention of terms of grant read with Sections 19, 40 and 48­A of the Act is made out against the appellants. We find no good ground to take any other view than the one taken by the Courts below on the facts found proved.

14. On perusal of the written submissions also, we are unable to notice any point worth taking note of to disturb the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the three Courts below.

15. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the appeals have no merit. They are accordingly dismissed.

February 27, 2019 6
Gurvachan Kaur & Ors vs Salikram (Dead) Through Lrs

Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court, Salikram preferred second appeal. During the pendency of the appeal, plaintiff - Jogendra Singh Ghai died and his legal representatives were brought on record. The High Court re-appreciated the evidence and held that as the plaintiff has not been able to prove his ownership of the house on the basis of Exhibit-P8, he cannot be treated as landlord qua defendant-Salikram. The High Court observed that the plaintiff has failed to show as to how he dealt with the property between 13.08.1958, i.e., the date of alleged purchase and 30.05.1967, i.e., the date on which Salikram is said to have executed rent note and held that the defendant cannot be treated as a tenant of the suit premises. On the basis of these findings, the High Court reversed the decree of eviction passed by the lower appellate court and dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff.

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, the impugned judgment rendered by the High Court is set aside and the one passed by the lower appellate court is restored. No costs.
Radha Mohan Malakar & Ors vs Usha Ranjan Bhattacharjee & Ors

5. The promotees filed a writ petition before the learned Single Judge of the Gauhati High Court which was dismissed on 23.4.2004, but against that judgment a writ appeal was filed by the promotees which was allowed by the impugned judgment dated 5.4.2006 of the Division Bench of the High Court. Hence this appeal by the direct recruits.

11. Acting upon the said order dated 25.5.2000, the State Government published afresh, vide order dated 9.6.2000 a seniority list of the officers of the Tripura Civil Service Grade-II whereby the direct recruits of 1990 were 6 placed en-bloc over the promotees of 1991. The Government order dated 25.5.2000 aforementioned as well as the seniority list dated 9.6.2000, aforementioned came to be challenged by some promotees of 1991, in two writ petitions, namely, Writ Petition Nos. 293/2000 and 294/2000.

13. The Division Bench by the impugned judgment has set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge and allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of learned Single Judge dated 23.4.2004 as well as clarificatory order dated 25.5.2000 and the impugned gradation list dated 9.6.2000. The Division Bench directed the authority to prepare a fresh gradation list in 7 respect of the Grade II of the Tripura Civil Services in terms of the principles embodied in the unamended Rule 28 (iii) of the Tripura Civil Services 1967 and in the light of its observations. The order was restricted to the appellants and private respondents before the Devision Bench.

26. In our opinion this appeal deserves to be allowed.

(emphasis supplied)

30. The result of the impugned judgment of the Division Bench will be that the 1990 direct recruits who were recruited against vacancies created before 1988 will be pushed below the 1991 promotees in seniority. In our opinion such a view is clearly erroneous in law.

31. In our opinion the Government's order dated 25.5.2000 and office memorandum dated 9.6.2000 are valid and are in accordance with the Tripura Civil Service Rules, and the view of the Division Bench is not correct.

33. Since the quota of direct recruits has not been exceeded hence in our opinion the seniority has to be calculated from the date of the initial appointment and the said seniority cannot be pushed down. 17

34. For the reasons given above this appeal is allowed, the impugned judgment of the Division Bench is set aside and judgment of the learned Single Judge is upheld. No orders as to costs.
Om Prakash(D) Tr.Lrs vs Shanti Devi & Ors

4 Concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the Appellate Court are to the effect that the Gift Deed had not been proved under Sections 68 and 69 of the Evidence Act; the evidence that had been led was found wanting as regards proof of execution of the Gift Deed. The High Court dismissed the Second Appeal finding no substantial question of law before it and no justification for interference with the findings of facts by the Courts below.

13 While clarifying law as we have striven to do above, since the Gift Deed in question was tendered in evidence five months prior to having become thirty years old, the Appeal is devoid of merits. The Appellant did not even attempt to prove the Gift Deed in any manner known in law. 14 The Interim Order is recalled. The Appeal is dismissed but we desist from imposing costs.
Santosh Devi vs Mahaveer Singh .

2 The appellants are the wife and children of Puran Chand, who met with a road accident on 30 December 1992. A government Jeep, bearing Registration No. HYH- 100 dashed into his moped, bearing Registration No. HR-20-A-7236. Puran Chand sustained grievous injuries and died.

2 3 The appellants filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the MACT, seeking compensation of Rs. 10 lakhs. The MACT found that the Jeep was being driven rashly and negligently by the first Respondent on the wrong side of the road. The deceased was aged 38 years at the time of his death and was in the business of selling desi ghee and namkin bhujia. The appellants claimed that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs. 3,500. The MACT, however, held that the deceased was working in a small village; his shop bore no name; he was not paying tax, hence his income was assessed at Rs. 1,200 per month. Accordingly, the appellants were awarded an amount of Rs. 1,15,200 after applying a multiplier of 12, along with interest at 15 per cent per annum.

7 The appellants would be entitled to interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of the petition until payment. 8 The appeal is allowed in the above terms. There shall be no order as to costs.

...........................................CJI [DIPAK MISRA] ...........................................J [A M KHANWILKAR] ...........................................J [Dr D Y CHANDRACHUD] New Delhi;

August 09, 2018
Venture Global Engineering vs Satyam Computer Services Ltd. & Anr

3) The facts, which are necessary for the disposal of this appeal, are as under:

5) After taking us through agreements entered into by both the parties, subsequent developments such as alleged violations, Award by an Arbitrator at U.K., proceedings before the District Court, Michigan, USA and the impugned proceedings of the Ist Additional Chief Judge-City Civil Court, Secunderabad as well as the order of the High Court, Mr. K.K. Venugopal learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant has raised the following contentions:

29) In terms of the decision in Bhatia International (supra), we hold that Part I of the Act is applicable to the Award in question even though it is a foreign Award. We have not expressed anything on the merits of claim of both the parties. It is further made clear that if it is found that the Court in which the appellant has filed a petition challenging the Award is not competent and having jurisdiction, the same shall be transferred to the appropriate Court. Since from the inception of ordering notice in the special leave petition both parties were directed to maintain status quo with regard to transfer of shares in issue, the same shall be maintained till the disposal of the suit. Considering the nature of dispute which relates to an arbitration Award, we request the concerned Court to dispose of the suit on merits one way or the other within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. Civil appeal is allowed to this extent. No costs.
Sheikh Abdul Rashid And Ors. vs State Of J And K And Ors.

3. Names of the respondents were entered in the List E on 25.04.1978. They were promoted on officiating basis on 19.05.1979.

4. The Government of Jammu and Kashmir, however, on or about 01.08.1985 issued a notification directing their promotion with retrospective effect ignoring the seniority of the appellants herein inter alia stating:

5. Realising that the said order may be held to be illegal by a court of law, by an order dated 3.12.1985 the same was cancelled. On the same day, however, by an order No. 1263 of 1985, promotions were directed to be granted with retrospective effect from 25.04.1978, i.e., from the date on which the respondents were brought on promotion List E.

in the ratio and in the manner specified against each post in Schedule - II.

14. Recruitment by promotion - (1) There shall be a Departmental Promotion Committee constituted by the Government from time to time who shall examine the promotion cases.

20. Maintenance of seniority lists - Seniority of the members of the service shall be regulated under the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1956. The Administrative Department shall maintain an up to date and final seniority lists in each grade of the service.

16. Similarly, although the statute provides for grant of officiating promotion, but the same is not conducive in the sense that even after getting officiating promotion, one may be reverted to the original post held by him. We do not mean to say that the seniority would be reckoned from the date of confirmation but we only intend to point out that the Rules having been provided for officiating promotion, the learned Single Judge was correct in taking that factor also into consideration for the purpose of determining the validity of the impugned order before the High Court. The said order dated 3.12.1985 even otherwise appears to be mala fide having been passed for unauthorised purpose. If the said order dated 3.12.1985 is read with the earlier one being dated 1.08.1985, the intention of the Government to favour the private respondents herein becomes explicit. It is not expected of a government to brazenly favour one set of employees so as to defeat the bona fide claim of the other set of employees. We, therefore, are of the opinion, that the impugned judgment cannot be sustained which is set aside accordingly. The appeals are allowed.

17. However, in exercise of our discretionary jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, we direct that despite this order if any monetary benefit has been conferred upon the private respondents, the same may not be recovered.