L-NLProc/TathyaNyaya-and-FactLegalLlama-NyayaScrape-Datasets huggingface dataset:
N.Anantha Reddy vs Anshu Kathuria & Ors

2. The respondent No. 1 herein filed a suit for declaration and perpetual injunction against the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (respondent No. 2 herein) and the Assistant City Planner (respondent No. 3 herein). In the suit, the respondent No. 1 (plaintiff) prayed that notice dated 23.12.2009 issued under Section 452 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 be declared as illegal, void and not legally tenable. It was further prayed that the defendants (respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein) have no right to interfere with the construction being put up by the plaintiff. The plaintiff also prayed for perpetual injunction restraining the two defendants, their officers/officials/servants from interfering with the suit scheduled property and by directing them not to demolish or cause any damage to the suit schedule property.

5. The above order of the trial court was challenged by the respondent No. 1 (plaintiff) before the High Court. The High Court, after hearing the parties, by its order dated 08.06.2011 dismissed the Civil Revision Petitions filed by the respondent No. 1 herein by observing as follows :

9. A careful look at the impugned order would show that the High Court had a fresh look at the question whether the appellant could be impleaded in the suit filed by the respondent No. 1 and, in the light of the view which it took, it recalled its earlier order dated 08.06.2011. The course followed by the High Court is clearly flawed. The High Court exceeded its review jurisdiction by reconsidering the merits of the order dated 08.06.2011. The review jurisdiction is extremely limited and unless there is mistake apparent on the face of the record, the order/judgment does not call for review. The mistake apparent on record means that the mistake is self evident, needs no search and stares at its face. Surely, review jurisdiction is not an appeal in disguise. The review does not permit rehearing of the matter on merits.

12. The impugned order dated 13.12.2011 is, accordingly, set aside. Appeals are allowed as above. No costs.
Union Of India vs S.P.S. Rajkumar And Ors

Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

It is submitted that the High Court had erred in holding that the relevant date was the date of filing of the writ petition. It should be the date of the judgment of the GCM.

There is also no plea raised in these appeals as regards the finding that nobody who was senior was available. Therefore, the High Court was not justified in interfering with the conclusions of the GCM holding the same to be not validly constituted. The order is set aside. The appeals of the Union of India stand allowed to that extent. Raj Kumar's appeal is sans merit.

The appeals are accordingly disposed of. There will be no order as to costs.
Harishchandra Prasad Mani & Others vs State Of Jharkhand & Another

It appears that one Suresh Chandra Sinha, respondent No. 2 in this appeal, filed Criminal Complaint being Complaint Case No. 946/2001 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh, which was sent by the CJM under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to the Police directing it to register a case and investigate it. Accordingly, the Police instituted an FIR being Ramgarh P.S. Case No. 311/2001 under Sections 302, 201, 328 and 120-B IPC against the appellants.

The allegation in the FIR in short was that the son of the informant Rajnish Kumar was married to accused Monika Mani (appellant No. 2 herein), and she had developed illicit relationship with the accused named in the FIR namely, Prabhat Kumar Srivastava. The accused Monika, daughter-in-law of the informant was in the habit of spending money unnecessarily and she used to put undue pressure on her husband for wasteful expenditure. The son of the informant was of a very docile nature and he could not object to such an act of his wife because his wife used to create scenes in a state of anger and she also used to insult her husband off and on.

It was further alleged in the FIR that the son of the informant also caught his wife and his paramour red-handed in some compromising position and, thereafter, it is alleged that the accused persons by hatching conspiracy committed murder of his son at Ramgarh and brought the dead body to Biharsharif with a false death certificate and, then, the dead body was cremated at Patna. The informant alleged in the FIR that he came to know subsequently that his son, in fact, did not die due to illness or disease rather he was murdered by the accused persons and then the informant lodged the case before the Police against the accused persons.

No doubt, it has been alleged in the complaint that the wife of the deceased was having an affair with accused No. 2, but this itself is only a suspicion and cannot be the basis of a conviction. Similarly, the fact that the in-laws of the deceased did not take part in his cremation is not evidence to show their guilt.

In our opinion, since there is no material on the basis of which cognizance was taken, we quash the order dated 12.4.2005 taking cognizance of the offence. Resultantly, the impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside and the appeal is allowed.
Rambeer Shokeen vs State Of Nct Of Delhi

2. Briefly   stated,   the   appellant   has   been   named   as   an Digitally signed by SUBHASH CHANDER Date: 2018.01.31 accused in FIR No.10 of 2015 registered at the Police Station 17:31:33 IST Reason: 2 (Special Cell), Delhi, for offence punishable under Sections 3 & 4  of   the   Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 (hereinafter  referred  to as the “MCOCA”).   He has also been named   as   an   accused   in   FIR   No.65/2016   for   offence punishable under Sections 26 & 27 of the Arms Act, registered at the same police station. He was declared as a proclaimed offender   in   connection   with   the   said   case   and   was   later arrested on 27th November, 2016.

During   investigation,   several   evidences   including   followings have been collected against above accused Rambeer Shokeen:

9. As   directed,   the   matter   was   taken   up   by   the   Special Court   on   8th  March,   2017   when   the   prosecution   filed supplementary charge­sheet against the appellant. The Court passed the following order:

26.   Pertinent   to   mention   here   that   the   request   for interrogation   of   the   appellant   in   custody   made   by   the investigating officer on 4.3.2017, granted on the same date by   the   District   and   Sessions   Judge,   was   for   the   same reasons  and  on  the  same  grounds   as   were  set   out   by  the public prosecutor in his request submitted on 28.2.2017.

Application stands disposed of accordingly. Copy of this Order   be   sent   to   Superintendent,   Tihar   Jail,   Delhi   for compliance.

Production of the accused at that time in the court informing him that the question of extension of the period for completing investigation   is   being   considered,   is   alone   sufficient   for   the purpose.

29. A priori, these appeals must fail.  Indeed, rejection of the prayer for grant of statutory bail will not come in the way of the appellant in pursuing his remedy for grant of regular bail 41 on merit.   The appellant is free to pursue that remedy which may be considered on its own merits in accordance with law.

30. Accordingly, these appeals are dismissed being devoid of merits.

.………………………….CJI.

January 31, 2018.
Tarlochan Singh vs Union Of India And Anr

4 The appellant filed review petition seeking separate compensation for boundary wall, flooring and compensation for loss of business. By order dated 19th July, 2010, the Arbitrator passed an award by granting additional compensation at Rupees 150/- per sq. ft. for the flooring of the land and Rupees five lakh as lump sum compensation for shrinking the front portion of the land on the assumption that the business was affected. 5 The respondents challenged the awards dated 4th June, 2010 and 19th July, 2010 before the Additional District Judge, Jalandhar. The Additional District Judge by his order dated 6th July, 2013 upheld the Award. The appellant filed FAO 6315 of 2013 before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh challenging the aforesaid two orders of the Arbitrator. The respondents filed FAO 6225/2013, 6226/2013 and FAO 254/2014 challenging the order of the Additional District Judge dated 6th July, 2013 and the awards dated 4th June, 2010 and 19th July, 2010 passed by the Arbitrator. The High Court dismissed all their appeals on 8th January, 2014 and on 3rd February, 2014. The respondents filed Special Leave Petition challenging the dismissal of their appeals before this Court in SLP(C) CC Nos.10645-46 of 2014, which were withdrawn on 14th August, 2014. Thereafter, the respondents filed review applications before the High Court. As noticed above, the High Court has passed an order on 14th March, 2016 allowing the review applications and remitting the matter again to the Arbitrator. 6 We have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant, as well as Mr. Nadkarni, learned Additional Solicitor General. It is clear that though the land was acquired in the year 2004, the appellant is yet to receive the full compensation. The matter is still pending before the statutory Arbitrator. The matter requires expeditious disposal. We are of the view that it is just and proper to appoint Hon’ble Shri Justice Mukul Mudgal, former Chief Justice of Punjab & Haryana High Court, as an Arbitrator in the place of the statutory Arbitrator appointed under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956, for adjudication of the dispute between the parties in relation to the quantum of compensation payable to the land owner. The statutory Arbitrator is directed to send all the case papers in relation to the aforesaid cases to the learned Arbitrator appointed as per this order forthwith. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Arbitrator on 17th May, 2017 at 11.00 A.M. along with copy of this Order. The learned Arbitrator is requested to adjudicate the aforesaid dispute as expeditiously as possible.

7 The appeals are disposed of in the aforesaid terms. 8 There will be no order as to costs.

April 21, 2017.
Mahendra Singh vs State Of M.P

The parties are related to each other. Complainant Kanto Bai (PW-1) had a bull. Appellant borrowed the same for carrying fodder. He did not return it. Avtar Singh (deceased) - son of PW-1 - went to the hut of the accused persons to take it back on 27.06.1995. Appellant and his co-accused named Harbhajan Singh refused to part with it. The deceased requested his mother Kanto Bai (PW-1) to get the same whereupon both the deceased and PW-1 went to the hut of accused persons. They intended to bring it back without informing the appellant. They found their bull grazing. They had been bringing back the same quietly. Appellant and the said Harbhajan Singh carrying 'bake' and 'luhangi' respectively came behind them to the field of Ajit Singh. They made an attempt to snatch the bull from the deceased. When he resisted, the appellant is said to have assaulted him with bake and Harbhajan Singh assaulted him by luhangi. PW-1 intervened and tried to save her son. She fell on his body. She was pulled up by her hair. She started crying. The deceased Avtar Singh died on the spot. The incident took place at about 8 a.m. in the morning. An information in that behalf was received by the officer in-charge of the concerned police station. The police officer came to the spot, took the statement of PW-1. A First Information Report was registered round about 10.30 a.m. Both the accused persons were put on trial upon completion of the investigation.

Before the learned Trial Judge, the appellant and Harbhajan Singh pleaded not guilty. Upon consideration of the deposition of the witnesses examined on behalf of prosecution, the appellant and the said Harbhajan Singh were convicted under Sections 302/34 and 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

(vii) Incised wound with clear cut margin 6 cm x = cm x = cm left lateral back of shoulder;

(ix) Abrasion 6 cm x < cm obliquely left medical scapular area."

In the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the opinion that there is no merit in this appeal which is dismissed accordingly.
Commissioner Of Trade Tax, U.P vs Associated Distributors Ltd

4. The issue involved in these appeals is confined to the rate of tax applicable on the sales of Bubble-gum. According to the appellant, Bubble-gum is taxable as an unclassified good and would attract the duty at the rate of 10% inclusive of surcharge. In the impugned judgment, the High Court arrived at the conclusion that Bubble-gum is a confectionery item and, therefore, be taxed at the rate of 6.25%.

5. The Tax Assessing Officer for the assessment year 1994- 95 has levied the tax with additional tax at the rate of 10% treating Bubble-gum as unclassified and non-scheduled item. In an appeal filed by the respondent, the learned First Appellate Court accepted the submission of the respondent and taxed Bubble-gum at the rate of 6.25%. The appellant aggrieved by the said order preferred the second appeal before the Sales Tax Tribunal, Branch-II Ghaziabad. The Tribunal in detail discussed the controversy involved in the case.

13. The respondent aggrieved by the said judgment of the tribunal filed a revision petition before the High Court of judicature at Allahabad.

16. The appellant aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court dated 9.11.2001 has preferred this appeal.

22. These civil appeals are accordingly allowed and the impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside. In the facts and circumstances, we direct the parties to bear their own costs.
Kalyan Singh vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

The incident occurred a t about 4.30 p.m. on 31.7.1989. The first informant Gyan Singh, who is the brother of the deceased, had gone to take bath at the well of one Dangal Singh Yadav. Allegedly Gyan Singh, who was also coming to the well for taking bath, found that his brother had been taking bath using soap on his body when Budh Singh armed with bore double barrel rifle, Kalyan Singh armed with 12 bore double barrel rifle, Ashok Yadav armed with Topidar rifle of Kalyan and Gulab and Dashrath armed with rifles reached the spot and surrounded the well. The appellant herein is said to have given an exhortation pursuant whereto Budh fired at Durga Singh Rawat (the deceased) from behind resulting in his death. The learned Trial Judge disbelieved that part of the prosecution story whereby Kalyan Singh, Ashok Kumar and Gulab Singh were roped in, inter alia on the ground that Gyan Singh (PW-1) stated in his deposition that Kalyan Singh said: "hit sale main" "he should not escape", but the statement of Munna Lal (PW-2) is that Kalyan Singh said to Budh Singh: "Hit sale main", and thus there was contradiction between the statements of PW-1 and PW-2.

The High Court unfortunately did not notice that the learned Trial Judge analysed the evidence of the said witnesses in great details and found inconsistencies therein. The learned Trial Judge stated , it will bear repetition to state, that he did not accept the prosecution case so far as Kalyan Singh is concerned as also on the ground that the depositions of the prosecution witnesses who were inimically disposed towards Kalyan Singh.

We, therefore, having regard to the fact situation of the instant case, are of the opinion that as two views are possible, the High Court should not have interfered with the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge. We, therefore, set aside the impugned judgment and allow this appeal. The appellant is in jail, he is directed to be released forthwith if not required in connection with any other case.
State Of Tamil Nadu & Ors vs Amala Annai Higher Sec.School

3. Amala Annai Higher Secondary School (hereinafter referred to as, `AAHS School') was originally a middle school. AAHS School was upgraded as high school from academic year 1988-89 w.e.f. June 13, 1988. All the posts of the middle school were absorbed in the high school. At the time of upgradation of the school from middle school to high school, the strength of students was less than 300. One Ms. Rosary was appointed by the management as a Junior Assistant on the very same day the school was upgraded from middle school to high school without getting approval from the Competent Authority. The management of the school then made a request to the Competent Authority for sanction of one post of Junior Assistant which was not acceded to. The said request was renewed from 1991-1992 onwards but without any favourable response from the appellants. The management then made a representation to the state government on January 20, 1997. While the said representation was under consideration before the state government, the management of the school filed a writ petition (W.P.No.4536/1997) before the High Court of Judicature at Madras. That writ petition was disposed of by the 2 Single Judge on October 15, 1997 directing the present appellants to consider the representation dated January 20, 1997 and pass final order on the same after hearing the management of the school.

5. The aforesaid communication dated July 3, 1998 was not challenged by the school, although further representations were made. After about seven years, the management of the school filed another writ petition before the High Court of Judicature at Madras, Madurai Bench, Madurai, praying for a direction to the government of Tamil Nadu to sanction one post of Junior Assistant to the school from the 3 academic year 1991-92 and approve the appointment of the incumbent who was appointed to that post and confer all consequential benefits.

8. An intra court appeal was preferred by the present appellants before the Division Bench. However, as noticed 4 above, the Division Bench by its order dated December 18, 2008 dismissed the appeal and maintained the order of the Single Judge.

16. The appeal must, accordingly, succeed and is allowed with no order as to costs.

........................J (Tarun Chatterjee) ........................J (R. M. Lodha) New Delhi August 28, 2009 9
Master Prasad & Anr vs State Of Rajasthan

Appellant herein, Master Prasad, preferred S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 1196 of 2008 through a private counsel and S.B. Criminal Jail Appeal No. 0223 of 2008 from jail whereas the other appellant Kannu Bhaijala Crl.A. Nos. of 2011 @ SLP(Crl) 9303-9305 of 2010 2 preferred S.B. Criminal Jail Appeal No. 775 of 2008 before the High Court and the High Court vide its common judgment dated 29th July, 2009, while confirming the conviction reduced the sentence of ten years to seven years rigorous imprisonment. The present appeals by way of special leave have been filed impugning the judgments of the courts below.

With this modification in the sentence, the appeals are dismissed.

The appellants be released forth with if not wanted in any other case.

Crl.A. Nos. of 2011 @ SLP(Crl) 9303-9305 of 2010 3
Sohan Lal vs State Of Haryana & Ors

3. The brief facts that would be relevant for the adjudication of the present case may be noticed as hereinbelow:

7. Aggrieved by the award dated 27.02.2004 passed by the learned Labour Court, the appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court. The same having been dismissed by the High Court by order dated 22.08.2005, the present appeal has been filed. The order of the High Court dismissing the writ petition is based on an order of the same date passed in another writ petition involving identical facts.

MAY 06, 2013.
Pralhad & Ors vs State Of Maharashtra & Anr

1. The relevant facts common in these appeals are that a preliminary notification dated 5.03.1983 was issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as, `the Principal Act') in respect of the land at Ghonga Tank in village Ghonga, Taluk Barshitakli, Akola, Nagpur. It was followed by a notification 1 under Section 6 of the Principal Act on 28.07.1983.

per acre, with solatium at the rate of 30% as per the amendment and interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of possession.

5. The State of Maharashtra challenged the award of the Reference Court in the High Court of Bombay (Nagpur Bench), Nagpur. The landowners did not file any appeal or cross-objections against the judgment of the Reference Court, but filed applications under Order 41, Rule 33 of the Civil Procedure Code (for short "CPC") claiming additional compensation at the rate of 12% p.a. on the market value for the period commencing from the date of publication of the award and interest at 9% p.a. on enhanced compensation from the date of taking possession for a period of one year and at the rate of 15% for the further 3 period, in view of the amendment to the Principal Act.

23. For the reasons aforesaid, this Court holds that the appellants are entitled to the benefit of the amended provision of Section 23 (1A) of the Principal Act in view of the clear law laid down by this Court in Paripoornan (supra). The appeals are allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs.
Anand Ramachandra Chougule vs Sidarai Laxman Chougala

The present two appeals have been preferred by the complainant and the State respectively. The challenge is to the orders of the High Court, by which the respondents nos.3 and 4 have been acquitted, and the conviction of the respondents nos.1 and 2 to life imprisonment under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) has been altered to one under Section 304 Part I/34 Digitally signed by GULSHAN KUMAR ARORA Date: 2019.08.06 sentencing them to seven years.

When they reached near the house of one Yeellappa Patil, the accused persons are alleged to have assaulted them leading to homicidal death. The trial court convicted all the four accused. The High Court in appeal concluded from the materials on record that the assault was made on the spur of the moment without premeditation and that both sides having suffered injuries the conviction ought to be altered under Section 304 Part I, IPC. Two of the accused were acquitted as their presence was found to be doubtful.

14. Dayal Singh (supra) is distinguishable on its own facts as it did not relate to suppression of materials with regard to the accused during the trial in addition to the failure to investigate. A defective investigation shall be completely 9 different from no investigation at all coupled with suppression of the injury report arising out of another F.I.R with regard to the same occurrence.

17. We, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the order of the High Court. The appeals are dismissed.
State Of Punjab & Anr vs Surinder Pal Singh & Anr

2. The respondents, by a judgment dated 5th April, 1999 of the Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh, were directed to be appointed in service and the Public Service Commission was to take steps within 30 days for doing so. Thereafter steps were taken by the State and as there was some delay, the respondents again went to the Court for implementation of the order and the appointments were made in September, 2000. As they had to be given appointments from 1998 onwards the notional scale pay was fixed and they were also given the notional increments for belated appointments. The respondents thereafter filed a writ petition claiming that they should be given arrears of salary from the period 1998. The High Court, by the impugned judgment, has directed that as these respondents ought to have been appointed from 1998, the State should pay their salary from 1998 onwards.

5. The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs.

...............CJI.

FEBRUARY 6, 2009.