L-NLProc/TathyaNyaya-and-FactLegalLlama-NyayaScrape-Datasets huggingface dataset:
J.Chitra vs R.Somashekar

1. The petitioner-wife seeks transfer of the petition filed by the husband for restitution of conjugal rights, pending before the Principal Judge, Family Court at Bangalore, Karnataka to the First Additional Family Court at Chennai, Tamil Nadu, for being considered along with O.P.No.2898/2007. We are told that the petitioner is staying with her parents and daughter at Chennai and she will find it difficult to contest the proceedings at Bangalore.

2. Though notice has been served on the respondent, he has not chosen to enter appearance. Instead he has sent a letter to the Registry saying that he has no objection for transfer of the case. In view of the facts and circumstances, M.C.No.841 of 2007 titled as R.Somashekar Vs. J.Chitra pending before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bangalore, Karnataka is directed to be transferred to the First Additional Family Court, Chennai, Tamil Nadu.

4. The transfer petition is allowed accordingly.
Bilkish vs United India Insurance Co.Ltd.& Anr

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

4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the view taken by the High Court & Tribunal is not correct. The incumbent was a bachelor and he could not have spent more than 1/3rd of his total income for personal use and rest of the amount earned by him would certainly go to the family kitty. Therefore, determining the loss of dependency by 50% was not correct. Therefore, we assess that he must be spending 1/3rd towards personal use and contributing 2/3rd of his income to his family. Therefore, we work out that Rs. 30,000/- earned by him per annum. The loss of dependency was 2/3rd i.e. Rs. 20,000/- . The multiplier of '11' applied for loss of dependency was also not correct and as per schedule appended to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 it should be '12'. Applying the multiplier of 12 the total loss of dependency will be Rs. 20,000/-x 12 = Rs. 2,40,000/- and Rs, 10,000/- towards loss of estate & funeral expenses, the total compensation comes to Rs. 2,50,000/- and incumbent is entitled for interest @ 9/% per annum from the date of the petition. The appeal is allowed with the aforesaid modification. If any amount had already been paid to the claimant then that amount may be deducted from the total amount. Consequently, the appeal is allowed in part with no order as to costs.
Monju Roy & Ors vs State Of West Bengal

2. The deceased Shanti Roy was married to Sekhar Roy on 20th February, 1994. According to the prosecution, Sekhar Roy, his mother, two sisters and brother raised a demand of Rs.5000/- and since the said demand was not fulfilled, Shanti Roy was harassed and even kept without food. On 31 st July, Page 1 Criminal Appeal No.1797 of 2012 1995, she committed suicide by pouring kerosene and setting herself on fire. She was pregnant carrying eight months’ old foetus. Chittaranjan Saha (PW1), brother of the deceased lodged First Information Report. After conducting investigation, appellants Monju Roy, Anju Roy, sisters of Sekhar Roy, Tulshi Roy, brother of Sekhar Roy, Sumitra Roy, mother of Sekhar Roy and Sekhar Roy, husband of the deceased were sent up for trial. Sumitra Roy died on 27 th August, 2001 during pendency of the trial.

3. The prosecution examined 17 witnesses and also produced documents in support of its case. The witnesses examined included brother of the deceased PW 5 and mother of the deceased PW 14 to prove that the deceased was harassed by demand of dowry. Accepting the evidence, the trial court convicted and sentenced the three appellants as mentioned above and also Sekhar Roy who has not preferred appeal and is said to have undergone the sentence awarded to him. The High Court upheld the conviction and sentence with the modification that instead of life imprisonment under Section 304B awarded by the trial court, sentence of RI for ten years was awarded.

13. Accordingly, we allow this appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellants under Section 304B IPC without interfering with conviction and sentence under other heads. Since the appellants are said to have already undergone the sentence awarded for other charges which may be verified, they may be released from custody forthwith unless required in any other case.
Bharat Ratna Indira Gandhi ... vs State Of Maharastra & Ors

At the very outset we may note that in fact there was no petition before the High Court on which the impugned order was passed. The High Court took suo motu action on the basis of some information which has not been disclosed -2- in the impugned order. The cause title in the impugned judgment reads:

Moreover, we have perused the impugned order and we are of the opinion that the directions contained in paragraph 7 of the impugned judgment were wholly unwarranted as they amount to judicial legislation.

Accordingly, we allow these appeals and set aside the impugned order of the High Court. No costs. However, we direct that the process for filling up the posts of Principal may continue in accordance with law, and should be done expeditiously.
State Of Uttarakhand Th. Secretary vs Kumari Amita Singh And Ors

3. The aforesaid condition was challenged before the Uttarakhand High Court in Writ Petition(S/B) No.98 of 2006. The High Court passed a very brief order on the case. It held without any deliberation or discussion that the impugned condition offended Article 16 of the Constitution of India and, though, declining to interfere with the 2006 advertisement on the ground that it was issued four years ago, it directed the State Government by order dated December 3, 2010 to ensure that in future anyone registered with the Veterinary Council of any of the States in the country should be eligible for appointment in Uttarakhand. The relevant portion of the High Court order is as under:-

4. We are of the view that the issue before the High Court was quite serious and merited consideration in greater detail. We are unable to sustain the very brief order passed by the High Court on this serious issue. We, accordingly, set aside the order and remit the matter to the High Court to hear the parties afresh and to pass appropriate orders after taking into consideration not only the provisions of the Constitution but also the relevant statutory provisions.

6. In the result, the appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs.
Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Ltd vs Maddula Ratnavalli & Ors

4. Burmah-shell, the predecessor-in-interest of the appellant was a lessee for a period of 30 years by virtue of a deed of lease which was executed on or about 25.07.1959 by the respondent. The stipulated rent was Rs.50/- per month. On expiry of the period of lease on 30.08.1985, the appellant exercised its purported right of renewal by issuing a notice on or about 24.05.1989 stating :

30. In the instant case, the concurrent finding of fact is that the desire of the appellant was not bona fide. In any event, possession of the lease holding has already been delivered. Respondents have received possession after a long struggle. It is, therefore not a case where we should interfere with the impugned judgment particularly in view of the finding of fact arrived at by the courts below.

31. For the aforementioned reasons, these appeals are dismissed with costs. Counsel's fee assessed at Rs. 50,000/-.
National Insurance Co.Ltd vs Sebastian K.Jacob

2. The controversy lies within a very narrow compass. The appellant had filed appeal before the Kerala High Court questioning the correctness of a judgment rendered by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Thalassery. The award was passed in favour of the respondent allowing him to realize a sum of Rs.24,033/- with interest with proportionate cost from the driver, owner and present appellant jointly and severally payable by the present appellant. According to the appellant, the insurer is not liable to make the payment since the claimant is already compensated by another Insurance Company by paying Rs.21,700/- for the same cause of action consequent to the same accident. Therefore, it was submitted that the respondent was not entitled to double payment of compensation. The High Court did not accept the plea and upheld the award of MACT.

6. The appeal is allowed.
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Gangabishan @ Vishnu

2. Briefly stated the prosecution case is that Dinesh (PW­1) and his   brother   Rajesh   (deceased)   were   in   their   field   situated   in   the forest, for the purpose of watching the crops.  At that juncture, the accused   persons   reached   over   there   having   lathis   and   swords   in their   possession   except   accused   No.1   Gangabishan   alias   Vishnu, who  was   having   12   bore   gun and  started assaulting   Rajesh  with their respective weapons.   Accused No.1 caused gunshot injury on the left thigh of the deceased by 12 bore gun because of which he fell down on the ground.  Dinesh raised cry.  However, no one came to their rescue.  Somehow he managed to run away from the scene of   occurrence   and   disclosed   about   the   incident   to   Sidhnath, 3 Ramsingh, Gopal Khati and Laxminarayan Khati.  They all brought the deceased Rajesh on a cot from the field and thereafter took him in a mini truck.   The deceased Rajesh became unconscious.   The accused persons were also causing damage to the standing crops of PW­1 by grazing their cattle and the incident occurred because of the objection being raised by PW­1 in the morning of the same day.

4. The trial court after undertaking a full­fledged trial found the accused guilty under Sections 302/149 of IPC and sentenced them 4 to undergo life imprisonment and Rs.20,000/­ fine and on default additional   three   years   of   R.I.,   two   years   of   imprisonment   under Section 325/149 of IPC and fine of Rs.2000/­ and on default one year additional R.I, three years of R.I under Section 440 of IPC and fine   of   Rs.5000/­   and   on   default   six   months   additional   R.I   and except accused No.1, rest of the accused were sentenced to one year of R.I under Section 147 IPC and fine of Rs.500/­ and on default two months of additional R.I. Accused No. 1 was further convicted under Section 148 IPC   and Section 30 of the Arms Act and was sentenced to suffer two years of R.I and fine of Rs.1000/­ and on default four months of additional R.I. and four months of R.I and a fine   of   Rs.1000/­   and   on   default   four   months   of   additional   R.I respectively.

5.  Feeling aggrieved, the accused approached the High Court by filing an appeal.  By the impugned judgment herein, the High Court set aside the judgment and order of conviction of accused Nos.2 to 9 (respondent Nos.2 to 9).  However, respondent No.1 has been held guilty under Section 304 (Part I) IPC and sentenced to undergo ten 5 years R.I and fine of Rs.20,000/­ and in default to undergo three years R.I in addition.

10. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

July 27, 2018.
Babita Badasaria & Ors vs Patna Municipal Corporation & Ors

After the disbursement of the amount, as aforesaid, left over amount, if any, shall be returned to respondent No. 4.

The writ petition is disposed of with the directions aforesaid.” In view of the disposal of the writ petition, all the I.As. which were filed till then, were disposed of without any order. Subsequently, further I.As., being I.A. Nos.7-14 & 15 were filed which were disposed of by the following order passed on 13.8.2014:

We, however, make it clear that at the time of disposal of the writ petition, we had directed payment at the rate of Rs.6,000/- per sq. ft. to the persons who shall be affected on account of the demolition. Since the matter is concluded today, we enhance the said rate from Rs.6,000/- per sq. ft. to Rs.7000/- per sq. ft.. We further direct that all the flat owners will get their compensation and such compensation shall be paid within a period of six weeks from date and they will vacate the premises in their occupation, to give effect to the order so passed by us, within a period of one month thereafter.

We further direct that the Patna Municipal Corporation shall demolish the unauthorized structures within a period of four months and thereafter shall file a compliance report before this Court.

…....................................J (Pinaki Chandra Ghose) …...................................J (R.K. Agrawal) New Delhi;

March 10, 2016.

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pinaki Chandra Ghose pronounced the reportable order of the Bench comprising His Lordship and Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.K. Agrawal.

“12. .... .... In these circumstances, we do not intend to pass any further order in this matter. We only direct that steps shall be taken by the respondent authorities/Patna Municipal Corporation in the matter in terms of our order dated 9th July, 2014 passed in the said writ petition.

13. We, however, make it clear that at the time of disposal of the writ petition, we had directed payment at the rate of Rs.6,000/- per sq. ft. to the persons who shall be affected on account of the demolition. Since the matter is concluded today, we enhance the said rate from Rs.6,000/- per sq. ft. to Rs.7000/- per sq. ft.. We further direct that all the flat owners will get their compensation and such compensation shall be paid within a period of six weeks from date and they will vacate the premises in their occupation, to give effect to the order so passed by us, within a period of one month thereafter.

14. We further direct that the Patna Municipal Corporation shall demolish the unauthorized structures within a period of four months and thereafter shall file a compliance report before this Court.” (R.NATARAJAN) (SNEH LATA SHARMA) Court Master Court Master (Signed reportable order is placed on the file)
Adishwar Jain vs Union Of India & Anr

Appellant before us was detained under Section 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short "COFEPOSA"). He is the Managing Director of a company, registered and incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, known as M/s. Sundesh Springs Private Limited. It was an exporter and held a valid licence therefor. The company was to export products of alloy steel. Upon exporting of alloy steel, it was entitled to credits under the Duty Entitlement Pass Book (DEPB) Scheme introduced by the Government of India with an object of encouraging exports. He allegedly misdeclared both the value and description of goods upon procuring fake and false bills through one Prabhjot Singh. The said Prabhjot Singh was said to have been operating three firms, viz. M/s. S.P. Industrial Corporation, M/s. Aaysons (India) and M/s. P.J. Sales Corporation, Ludhiana. It was allegedly found that non-alloy steel, bars, rods, etc. of value ranging from Rs. 15/- to Rs. 17/- per kg. were exported in the guise of alloy steel forgings, bars, rods, etc. by declaring their value thereof from Rs. 110/- to Rs. 150/- per kg. and the export proceeds over and above the actual price were being routed through Hawala Channel. The officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) searched the factory as well as the residential premises of Appellant and that of Prabhjot Singh. Various incriminating documents were recovered. Appellant and the said Prabhjot Singh made statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act. Prabhjot Singh allegedly admitted to have supplied fake bills to units owned and controlled by Appellant on commission basis without actual supply of the goods. It was also found that Appellant had declared goods exported as "alloy steel" whereas after the tests conducted by Central Revenue Control Laboratory, they were found to be "other than alloy steel", i.e., non-alloy. The Consul (Economic), Consulate General of India at Dubai allegedly confirmed the existence of a parallel set of export invoices. Invoices with a higher value were presented before the Indian Customs Authorities with a view to avail DEPB incentives but in fact invoices with a lower value were presented for clearance.

On the aforementioned allegations, an order of detention was issued on 5.4.2005. Appellant moved for issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus before the High Court of Judicature of Punjab and Haryana. The said writ petition was dismissed by an order dated 23.11.2005 by a learned Single Judge. A letters patent appeal, concededly which was not maintainable, was filed thereagainst which was dismissed by reason of the impugned judgment.

In view of our findings aforementioned, it is not necessary to consider the contention raised by Mr. Mukul Rohtagi that order of detention suffers from non-application of mind. The judgment of the High Court, therefore, cannot be sustained. It is set aside accordingly and the order of detention passed against Appellant is quashed. The appeal is allowed. No costs.
Singh Ram (D) Tr.Lr vs Sheo Ram & Ors

3. The predecessor of the respondents mortgaged the suit property on 11.08.1903 to the predecessor of the appellants for a sum of Rs.80/-. The appellant-plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration that the suit land having not been redeemed for a period of more than 60 years, the defendants lost all rights, title and interest therein and the appellants became the owners by prescription.

5. On second appeal by the plaintiffs before the High Court, the matter was directed to be placed before the Full Bench to consider the following questions:-

24. Even, indisputably, despite expiry of the time for deposit of the mortgaged money in terms of the preliminary decree, a second suit for redemption would be maintainable.”
L.K.Venkat vs Union Of India & Ors

3. The writ petitioners and some others were convicted by the Special Judge for offences under Section 302 read with Section 120B IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 15 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (for short, ‘TADA’) and were sentenced to death. The appeals filed by them were dismissed by this Court vide judgment reported as State v. Nalini (1999) 5 SCC 253.

11. In the result, the transfer petitions are allowed and Writ Petition No. 20287 of 2011 titled V. Sriharan @ Murugan v. Union of India and others, Writ Petition No. 20288 of 2011 titled T. Suthendraraja @ Santhan v. Union of India and others and Writ Petition No. 20289 of 2011 titled A.G. Perarivalan @ Arivu v. Union of India and others pending before the Madras High Court are transferred to this Court.

13. The transferred cases shall be listed before the Court on 10.7.2012 for final disposal. Notice be issued to the writ petitioners that their case will be taken up for hearing by this Court on 10.7.2012. One set of the notices be also sent to the Superintendent, Central Jail, Vellore, Tamil Nadu, who shall ensure that the same are served upon the writ petitioners well before 10.7.2012.
Commr.Of Income Tax,Gujarat vs Gupta Global Exim (P) Ltd

Briefly, the facts are as follows:

For the aforestated reasons, we set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and we remit the matter to Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for de novo examination of the case in accordance with law. Needless to add that before deciding the matter afresh, the CIT (A) would give opportunity to the assessee to present its case and, if so 7 advised assessee herein can seek amendments of grounds of appeal to which the Department may put its additional say.

Accordingly, the Appeal stands allowed with no order as to costs.

........J. (B. SUDERSHAN REDDY) New Delhi;

May 06, 2008.
Krishnan vs Backiam & Anr

3. The plaintiff-appellant Krishnan filed a suit for declaration and injunction against the respondent-defendant alleging that the property in dispute had been earlier mortgaged to him on 30.9.1988 and then sold to him by Ramayee (alias Lakshmi) by registered sale deed dated 25.9.1989 which was also rectified by another registered sale deed dated 10.9.1990. It was alleged in the suit that an attempt was being made to dispossess the plaintiff and hence injunction may be granted in his favour.

13. In the circumstances, we set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and restore the judgment of the First Appellate Court dated 13.4.1999.

13. The Appeal is allowed. There is no order as to costs.
Sandvik Asia Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income Tax-I, Pune & Ors

The following facts are not in dispute:-

(1A) Where the whole or any part of the refund referred to in sub-section (1) is due to the assessee, as a result of any amount having been paid by him after the 31st day of March, 1975, in pursuance of any order of assessment or penalty and such amount or any part thereof having been found in appear or other proceeding under this Act to be in excess of the amount which such assessee is liable to pay as tax or penalty, as the case may be, under this Act, the Central Government shall pay to such assessee simple interest at the rate specified in sub-section (1) on the amount so found to be in excess from the date on which such amount was paid to the date on which the refund is granted:

Explanation : If the delay in granting the refund within the period of three months aforesaid is attributable to the assessee, whether wholly or in part, the period of the delay attributable to him shall be excluded from the period for which interest is payable.

244. Interest on refund where no claim is needed. (1) Where a refund is due to the assessee in pursuance of an order referred to in section 240 and the Income-tax Officer does not grant the refund within a period of [three months from the end of the month in which such order is passed], the Central Government shall pay to the assessee simple interest at [twelve] per cent per annum on the amount of refund due from the date immediately following the expiry of the period of [three] months aforesaid to the date on which the refund is granted.

4. The above instructions may be brought to the notice of the field formations with a request to comply with the directions and settle all the claims without any further delay. Any deviation and resultant liability to interest on delayed refunds shall be viewed strictly.

6. Kindly acknowledge receipt.

[Source : M.F.(D.R.) F.No. 275/37/2K-CX.8A, dated 2-1-2002]"

This is the fit and proper case in which action should be initiated against all the officers concerned who were all in charge of this case at the appropriate and relevant point of time and because of whose inaction the appellant was made to suffer both financially and mentally, even though the amount was liable to be refunded in the year 1986 and even prior to. A copy of this judgment will be forwarded to the Hon'ble Minister for Finance for his perusal and further appropriate action against the erring officials on whose lethargic and adamant attitude the Department has to suffer financially.

The assessment years in question in the four appeals are the assessment years 1977-78, 1978-79, 1981-82 and 1982-83. Already the matter was pending for more than two decades. We, therefore, direct the respondents herein to pay the interest on Rs.40,84,906 (rounded of to Rs.40,84,900) simple interest @ 9% p.a. from 31.03.1986 to 27.03.1998 within one month from today failing which the Department shall pay the penal interest @ 15% p.a. for the above said period.

In the result, the appeals stand allowed. We have no hesitation to set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court of Bombay. No costs.