L-NLProc/TathyaNyaya-and-FactLegalLlama-NyayaScrape-Datasets huggingface dataset:
Ram Naresh Prasad vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors

3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

During trial an application under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the `Cr.P.C.') was filed by prosecution with a prayer to summon the appellant as an accused. The said application was dismissed by the trial court. The same was not challenged before any higher court but the investigation was kept alive. Investigation was taken over by the CID Police from the district police. After investigation on 22.5.1999 final report was submitted so far as the appellant was concerned. The same was accepted. On 18.2.2002 after about two years, respondent No. 2, a practicing advocate who was neither the complainant nor having any connection with the alleged offence, filed a revision petition before the learned Sessions Judge, Palamau, against the order dated 22.5.1999. By order dated 18.2.2002 the revision petition was allowed and learned CJM was directed to hear the informant or APP, peruse case diary both original as well as supplementary and then pass order in accordance with law.

According to the appellant no notice was issued to the appellant nor was he heard. Though the revision petition was highly belated, the same was admitted ex parte and that too without condonation of delay. The appellant had no knowledge about these subsequent events. On 29.8.2002 learned 3 Chief Judicial Magistrate passed an order taking cognizance for offences punishable under Sections 413 and 414 IPC and non-bailable warrant was issued so far as the appellant is concerned. Aggrieved by the order dated 29.8.2002 of learned CJM, appellant filed a revision petition before learned Sessions Judge who dismissed the same. Questioning correctness of both the aforesaid orders, a writ petition was filed which was dismissed by the impugned order.

5. The respondent No.2 had appeared in person and according to him the State was taking the sides of the appellant, and he was forced to file the revision petition.

divisional Magistrate, and any other Magistrate specially empowered in this behalf, may take cognizance of any offence--

8. Accordingly we set aside the impugned order of the High Court and remit the matter to it to consider the following aspects :

(a) Whether the revision petition before the Sessions Judge was maintainable at the instance of Respondent No.2 and that too after considerable length of time;

(b) Whether the appellant needs to be heard; and

(c) whether the informant has to be given the notice.

9. Appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.
Nandakumar vs The State Of Kerala

The brief facts leading to the present appeal are that appellant No. 1 has married Ms.Thushara. According to the appellant, this marriage was solemnised on 12.04.2017 at the Chakkulathukavu Bagavathi Temple situated in the Trivandrum District, Kerala. Insofar as Thushara is concerned, as on the date of marriage, she was admittedly 19 years of age and was, therefore, competent to enter into wedlock. It appears that after that marriage, she started living with appellant No. 1 as his wife.

Respondent No. 4 is the father of Thushara. He filed Habeas Corpus petition being W.P.(Crl.) No. 149/2017(S) in the High Court of Kerala alleging therein that ever since Digitally signed by NIDHI AHUJA 10.04.2017, his daughter Thushara was missing. He also Date: 2018.05.03 17:01:05 IST Reason: stated in the said petition that Thushara was in the illegal 1 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 597 OF 2018 custody of appellant No. 1. In fact, respondent No. 4 had lodged FIR regarding missing of his daughter on 10.04.2017. Stating this fact in the writ petition, he averred that though the said FIR was registered, but no effective investigation had been conducted in the matter. On that basis, prayer made in the petition was to issue writ of Habeas Corpus commanding the appellants to produce his daughter in the High Court. This writ petition was admitted on 25.04.2017 and notice was ordered to the appellants herein by special messenger. On that day, the High Court also directed respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to trace out and produce the respondent No. 4’s daughter in the Court. On 28.04.2017, when the writ petition was taken up, respondent No. 4 and his wife were present. Appellants were also present. The Sub Inspector of Police, Vatgtiyoorkavu Police Station produced the detenue in the Court. The High Court interacted with the parties, including Thushara.

Sans lawful sanction, the centripodal value of liberty should allow an individual to write his/her script. The individual signature is the insignia of the concept.

Accordingly, we allow this appeal and set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court. However, since Thushara has not appeared as she was not made party in these proceedings, while setting aside the directions of the High Court entrusting the custody of Thushara to respondent No. 4, we make it clear that the freedom of choice would be of Thushara as to with whom she wants to live.

[ ASHOK BHUSHAN ] New Delhi;

April 20, 2018.
Assam Text Book Produn.& Pubn.Corp.Ltd vs Commr.Of Income Tax,Gauhati

constituted as `Central Text Book Committee', which was attached to the office of the Director of Public Instruction. In 1950, the name was changed to `Assam Text Book Committee' with ten members nominated by the State Government. In the year 1968, the Government re- constituted the said Committee as `Board of Text Book Production and Research'. The said Board was converted into Corporation in 1972 and the name was changed to `Assam State Text Book Production and Publication Corporation Limited' vide Notification dated 26th July, 1972 [for short, "the Corporation"]. All the assets of the said Board stood transferred to the Corporation with effect from 1st July, 1972. The Corporation had paid-up share capital of Rupees one crore and the break-up of the share holding was as follows:

...6/-

(supra) as also the letter of Central Government dated 9th July, 1973, referred to above.

Accordingly, the appeals stand allowed with no order as to costs.
Kanwar Natwar Singh vs Directorate Of Enforcement & Anr

2. In order to consider and decide the issue that arises for our consideration, it is just and necessary to briefly notice the relevant facts:

3. The appellants having received the show cause notice, instead of submitting their reply, required the Adjudicating Authority to furnish "copies of all the documents in ... possession in respect of the instant case, including the 83000 documents allegedly procured by one 5 Virender Dayal from USA in connection with the instant case..." This seemingly innocuous request ultimately turned out to be the origin of this avoidable litigation. The fact remains that the copies of all such documents as relied upon by the Adjudicating Authority were furnished. The Authority, however, declined to furnish copies of other documents and decided to hold an inquiry in accordance with the provisions of FEMA and the Rules.

5. Thereafter, a preliminary/short reply to the show cause notice was submitted by the appellants but once again insisting with the demand that the copies of the 6 documents not otherwise relied upon by the Adjudicating Authority also be supplied before taking any further steps in the matter.

(6) Every Adjudicating Authority shall deal with the compliant under sub-section (2) as expeditiously as possible and endeavor shall be made to dispose off the complaint finally within one year from the date of receipt of the complaint:

(2) Every notice under sub-rule (1) to any such person shall indicate the nature of contravention alleged to have been committed by him.

35.It appears that those Acts recognize rights of accused persons in a criminal case to a fair trial. It is clear that disclosure of unused material in criminal proceedings in United Kingdom is regulated by the provisions of those 4 Acts and applicable to criminal trials where the accused are charged with criminal offences. Duty of disclosure of unused material is not a definite concept to be applied in any and every case in this country. There is no such Act or law as in United Kingdom, nor any procedure prescribed for disclosure of unused material in criminal proceedings. In the present case, the appellants are not defendants in any criminal trial. The judgment has no application as to the fact situation and the law applicable in United Kingdom is not applicable to either the adjudicatory proceedings or even criminal trials in this country.

CONCLUSIONS:

However, we make it clear that the Authority shall make inquiry into the allegations made in the complaint strictly in accordance with the law and uninfluenced by the observations if any made in this order. We have not expressed any opinion whatsoever on the merits of the case. The appellants are entitled to all the defence that may be available to them in law.

41.For all the aforesaid reasons, the appeals are dismissed with costs.
Girish Bhushan Goyal vs B.H.E.L & Anr

3. Through Civil Appeals arising out of SLP (C) Nos.30883-30884 of 2012, the appellant challenged the impugned order of the High Court by which the High Court dismissed the Writ Petition No. 129 of 2009 and Review Application No. 431 of 2011 filed by the appellant against the termination Order of his service. Through the Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No.30877 of 2012, the appellant claims the pensionary and other monetary service benefits due to him against three decades of service rendered by him which has been withheld by the respondent- Company.

4. Necessary relevant facts are stated hereunder to appreciate the case of the appellant and also to find out whether the appellant is entitled for the relief as prayed in these appeals.

5. The appellant joined the service of the respondent-Company in 1970 and rose to the post of D.G.M. [Deputy General Manager]. He was to retire on 24.3.2009. It is the case of the appellant that four months prior to his retirement, an enquiry was initiated against him. The appellant accepted the charges of negligence on his part and also explained that the negligence was a part of the chain system which included his superiors as well as his subordinates.

11. While deciding on this issue, it is pertinent for us to ascertain the responsibility of the appellant against which he has been held negligent and also his role in the same. As per the Enquiry Report produced against him which is annexed with the appeal by the appellant, he was held negligent under Rules 5(5) and 5(9) of the BHEL Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the “BHEL Conduct Rules”) for being negligent while performing his duty and acting in a manner which is prejudicial to the interest of his employer. The Enquiry Report reads as under:

16. Since, we have answered point No. 1 in affirmative while allowing the Civil Appeals arising out of SLP (C) Nos.30883-30884 of 2012 and the dismissal order served on the appellant is quashed, the appellant becomes entitled to all the retiral and pensionary benefits under the relevant Rules for which he is statutorily entitled to. Accordingly, the Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No.30877 of 2012 filed by the appellant is also allowed. All the arrears in pension and other retiral benefits should be paid to him with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of application till the date of payment. Since, the appellant was terminated from his service just 6 days prior to his retirement whereby there was no further possibility of any increment, his last one year increment is liable to be deducted from the arrears which he is statutorily entitled to.

17. The appeals are accordingly allowed. The respondent-Company is directed to pay the pension to which the appellant is entitled to and also the arrears due to him, within eight weeks of the receipt of a copy of this order. There will be no order as to costs.
Bhargavi Constructions vs Kothakapu Muthyam Reddy

3) In order to appreciate the short legal controversy involved in the appeal, it may not be necessary to set out the factual controversy involved in the case in detail and only narration of few facts to appreciate the legal question arising in the case would suffice for the disposal of this appeal.

7) During the pendency of civil suit, on 22.08.2007, the parties (plaintiff and defendants) settled the matter in relation to the suit land and accordingly entered into written compromise.

8) A joint compromise petition signed by all the parties to the suit was accordingly filed before the Lok Adalat, which held its Lok Adalat sitting in the Court on 22.08.2007.

9) The members of the Lok Adalat before whom the suit was posted for its disposal in terms of the compromise petition filed by the parties perused the compromise petition and accepted the compromise petition finding it to be in order. An Award was accordingly passed on 22.08.2007 under Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) in terms of the compromise petition, which, in turn, disposed of the suit as having been compromised. (Annexure P-2).

14) The Trial Court, by order dated 24.07.2013 allowed the application filed by the defendants and rejected the plaint by invoking powers under clause

15) The plaintiffs, felt aggrieved, filed an appeal before the High Court. The High Court, by impugned order, allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the Trial Court and restored the suit on its file for its disposal on merits in accordance with law. The High Court held that since the suit is founded on the allegations of misrepresentation and fraud, it is capable of being tried on its merits by the Civil Court.

……..................................J. [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE] New Delhi;

September 07, 2017 20
Rakesh Kumar vs United India Insurance Company Ltd. And ...

3. Facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. They, however, need mention in brief to appreciate the short controversy involved in the appeals.

4. On 16.09.2008, Sheo Ram, Madan Mohan, and Mohindro Devi along with others were traveling in a three wheeler bearing Registration No. PH-11TC- 468 from Naraingarh to Shahzadpur. Madan Mohan was driving the three wheeler on the left side of the road. At about 10.30 a.m., when the three wheeler reached near Bus stop of Village Bharanpur on Naraingarh Shahzadpur Road, a truck bearing Registration No. HR-37-C-7937, which came from the opposite side, struck the three wheeler. Though its driver Madan Mohan tried to avoid the accident by taking his vehicle on the extreme left side of the road, yet all the occupants of the three wheeler suffered multiple injuries. The injured were taken to Civil Hospital, Naraingarh in private vehicles. Thereafter, Sheo Ram was referred to PGI Chandigarh where he succumbed to his injuries. A criminal case bearing FIR No. 88 dated 16.09.2008 was registered against Jaipal, driver of Truck No. HR-37-C-7937 at the Police Station, Shahzadpur, District Ambala for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 279/337/304-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”). Madan Mohan, another injured, who was driver of the three wheeler also died later at Civil Hospital, Naraingarh. Smt. Mohindro Devi, the third injured, also suffered a number of injuries in the accident and was shifted to Civil Hospital, Naraingarh but later she also died.

6. It was contested by the non-applicants. One of the defence of Insurance Company (R-3 therein) was that the driver of the offending vehicle had no valid and effective license and hence no liability can be fastened on the Insurance Company.

8. Challenging the said order, the Insurance Company filed FAO Nos. 6935, 6937 and 6977/2011 and the claimants filed FAO Nos. 906 and 907 of 2012 seeking enhancement of the compensation.

16. Learned counsel urged that the finding of the High Court is, therefore, not legally sustainable and hence deserves to be set aside and that of the Tribunal on this issue is liable to be restored.

22. We, therefore, find no good ground to concur with the finding of the High Court. Thus while reversing the finding, we hold that the driver of the offending vehicle was holding a valid driving license (Exhibit-R1) at the time of accident and since the Insurance Company failed to prove otherwise, it was liable to pay the compensation awarded by the Tribunal and enhanced by the High Court.

23. In view of foregoing discussion, the appeals filed by the insured (owner of the offending vehicle) succeed and are allowed. Impugned order in so far as it relates to exonerating of the Insurance Company from the liability to pay the compensation is set aside and the Insurance Company (Respondent No.1) is held liable to pay the compensation awarded by the Tribunal and enhanced by the High Court jointly and severally along with the driver and owner of the offending vehicle.

24. No costs.
Oil & Natural Gas Corp. Ltd vs Commnr. Of Income Tax & Anr

5. As the facts of Civil Appeal No. 731 of 2007 corresponding to I.T.A. No. 239 of 2001 has been considered in detail by the High Court and the view expressed in the said proceeding have been followed in all the other appeals before the High Court, it may be necessary to notice in detail the said facts arising in the appeal in question.

6. The appellant-ONGC and a non resident/foreign company one M/s. Foramer France had entered into an agreement by which the non-resident company had agreed to make available supervisory staff and personnel having experience and expertise for operation and management of drilling rigs Sagar Jyoti and Sagar Pragati for the assessment year 1985-86 and the drilling rig Sagar Ratna for the assessment year 1986-87. Faced with the different views taken by the authorities under the Act, as mentioned above, the High Court proceeded to analyse the different clauses of the contract between the parties. A consideration of such analysis made by the High Court would go to show that it had come to light before the High Court that the contract between the parties visualized operation of the oil rigs including drilling operations by the personnel made available under the contracts/agreements, which fact was further stated on affidavit before the High Court by an authorized official of the ONGC in the following terms. “That under the said agreement, Foramer was required, through its personnel listed in Exhibit-A to the said agreement, to carry out inter-alia the drilling operations specified in clause 4.3 to 4.10 of the said agreement.” Despite the above, the High Court took the view that under the agreement payment to M/s. Foramer France was required to be made at the rate of 3450 USD per day and that the contract clearly contemplated rendering of technical services by personnel of the non-resident company. Specifically, taking the view that the contract did not mention that the personnel of the non-resident company was also carrying out the work of drilling of wells and as the company had received fees for rendering service the payments made were liable to be taxed under the provisions of Section 44D of the Act. As already noticed, in the rest of the appeals before the High Court the aforesaid decision dated 15.12.2005 passed in I.T.A. No. 239 of 2001 was followed on the basis that the facts in all the appeals were similar to those involved in I.T.A. No. 239 of 2001.

2. Services starting/re-starting/enhancing production of oil and gas from wells

14. Consequently, all the appeals are allowed with no order as to the costs.

JULY 01, 2015.
Union Of India vs M/S. Millenium Mumbai Broadcast Pvt. ...

The Appellant herein, thereafter, issued guidelines permitting the five licensees in Mumbai to broadcast from interim independent facilities for an interim period of 24 months, during which period the five licensees were required to set up a common transmission tower.

2.5.2003, I am directed to inform you that you have failed to pay the 2nd year's licence fees within the prescribed period, your licence stands revoked and therefore you should stop broadcasting immediately."

It is furthermore not in dispute that the Respondent or the licensees similarly situated had suffered a huge monetary loss. They made representations for change of the licence fee structure. Admittedly, responding to the said representations the Union of India appointed a committee known as 'Dr. Amit Mitra Committee'. The said committee submitted its report on 18.11.2003 recommending that fee structure applicable to Phase-I licensees be done away with and in its stead and place a new regime called the 'revenue sharing regime' be brought in, in terms whereof the licensees would be required to pay licence fees @ 4% of the revenue generated. In terms of the said policy decision, all Phase-I licensee would be permitted to migrate to the new revenue sharing system in Phase- II.

Having noticed that the Respondent had complied with its interim order by depositing the requisite amount, the High Court allowed the Appellant to withdraw the said sum of Rs.23 lacs and also encash the bank guarantee furnished by the Appellant for another sum of Rs.23 lacs, the High Court directed:

We, therefore, are of the opinion that the Tribunal did not exceed its jurisdiction in issuing the impugned directions.

For the reasons aforementioned, we are of the opinion that no case has been made out for our interference with the impugned judgment of the Appellate Tribunal.

This appeal is dismissed accordingly. No costs.
State Of U.P. & Anr vs Ram Vinai Sinha

The respondent No.1 was appointed as Assistant Engineer in the Irrigation department of the State Government on 14th May, 1973 on an ad hoc basis and his services were regularised on 20th March, 1980 from the date of his initial joining.

Subsequently, on 25th May, 1981, the respondent No.1 was trapped allegedly taking a bribe, as a consequence whereof, a case under Section 161 I.P.C. and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 was registered against him and he was taken into custody. Subsequently, on 26th May, 1981, he was granted bail. On 18th August, 1981, the State Government terminated the services of the respondent No. 1 on the ground that his services were no more required.

Mr. Singh submitted that having regard to the nature of the facts involved, the High Court should have interfered with the order of the Tribunal and should have set aside the said order.

In that view of the matter, we see no reaason to interfere with the order of the High Court. The Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

There will be no order as to costs.
Katta Surendera vs State Of A.P

1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court upholding the conviction of the appellant for offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the `IPC'). By judgment dated 20th July, 2006 the High Court dismissed the appeal so far as the appellant is concerned. While upholding the conviction of the other appellants before it for offence punishable under Section 324 IPC, custodial sentence was reduced to one year from three years, fine amount was retained. Two persons, namely, M. Subbarayappa and Y. Ramappa (hereinafter referred to as D-1 and D-2 respectively lost their lives on 9.3.2002. Allegation was that the appellant and co-accused persons were responsible for their death.

2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: 2

5. The accused pleaded that there was pelting of stones by the mob in connection with the dispute regarding the laying of the road, therefore, it is very difficult to say as to who beat whom and who threw stones on him and it is not safe to find the appellants guilty of any of the offences and they shall be given benefit of doubt and the judgment of the lower Court has to be set aside.

8. According to the appellant even if the prosecution version is accepted in toto he was exercising the right of private defence and therefore no offence was made out.

14. In the circumstances of the present case, conviction is accordingly altered. The appropriate conviction is under Section 304 Part I IPC. Custodial sentence of ten years would meet the ends of justice.

15. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.