L-NLProc/TathyaNyaya-and-FactLegalLlama-NyayaScrape-Datasets huggingface dataset:
M/S Swan Mills Ltd vs Union Of India And Ors

3. The background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

4. The Tribunal vide its order dated 29th November, 1999 held that the appeal preferred by the appellant before the Commissioner (Appeals) was within time and, accordingly, set aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and remanded the matter back to him for fresh disposal in accordance with law.

18. The ratio in Shatrusailya's case (supra) is clearly applicable. In the instant case the appeal is to be treated as pending. The High Court was not justified in dismissing the writ petition. The impugned order of the High Court is set aside. Orders of the Designated Authority rejecting the declaration filed by the appellant are quashed. The appeal is allowed with no order as to costs.
Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C vs Raghuda Siva Sankar Prasad

The Department Manager A.P.S.R.T.C. is the appellant in this appeal. The respondent joined as cleaner in the APSRTC (in short 'the Corporation') on 02.10.1976. While working as mechanic, he was involved in a serious case of theft. On 23/24.08.1986, while working in the night shift, he committed a theft of Fuel Injection Pump. This apart, he was also involved in stealing an alternator bearing while working in the night shift on 11.09.1986.

He also unauthorisedly entered into the tyre section of the depot and stole a new tube of 900 x 20 size on 23/24.09.1986. A sponge sheet was also stolen from the garage of Gajuwaka Depot, where he was working. A charge- sheet was issued to the respondent framing four charges. The charges are as under:

Basing on the Enquiry Officer's report, the Depot Manager, on independently examining the matter, came to a conclusion that orders of removal would be an appropriate punishment for the proved charges of theft. Accordingly, the Depot Manager issued proceedings for removing the respondent from the services of the Corporation. Aggrieved by the order of his removal, the respondent raised an Industrial Dispute. In I.D. No. 139/1992, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the charges holding that the respondent was involved in a case of theft of the property belonging to the Corporation were correctly proved and the punishment of removal was justified under the factual circumstances of the case.

For the aforementioned reasons, we hold that the orders passed by learned Single Judge and as modified and affirmed by the learned Judges of the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No. 108 of 2005 dated 29.06.2005 deserves to be set aside. Accordingly, we do so.

In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant Corporation stands allowed and order of removal passed by the Labour Court is confirmed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
Gangaram vs The State Of Rajasthan And Ors.

An advertisement was issued by the Principal and Controller of Dr. S.N. Medical College and Associated Group of Hospitals at Jodhpur on 26 August 1991 inviting applications, inter alia, for one post of Projectionist.

The advertisement stipulated that the candidate must possess a higher secondary or equivalent qualification and a license for operating a cinema projector. The last date for filing application forms was 25 September 1991. The appellant Digitally signed by MANISH SETHI Date: 2019.04.03 and the third respondent were the only candidates. The 15:47:36 IST Reason: appellant was appointed on the post of Projectionist.

Both the appellant and the third respondent were 2 interviewed on 10 October 1991. The appellant was placed at Sr. No. 1 of the select list. As a result, he was appointed.

While reversing the judgment of the learned Single Judge, the Division Bench held that under the terms of the advertisement, applications were required to be received by 25 September 1991. The application in the opinion of the Division Bench should have been accompanied by necessary certificates establishing academic and technical qualifications. The Division Bench held that the appellant did not, together with his application, furnish any document showing that he held a license for operating cinema projectors. On this ground, the Division Bench came to the conclusion that the appellant was not qualified on the last date for the submission of applications. The appointment of the appellant was quashed and 3 a direction was issued to consider the candidature of the third respondent on the basis of his eligibility on the relevant date and to give him an appointment if he is otherwise found suitable.

Acquisition within three months of the appointment is permissible under sub-rule (2-A). The appellant acquired the license after the date of his appointment. This amounts to a valid compliance with the express provisions of sub-rule (2-A) of Rule 68.

For the above reasons, we are of the view that the Division Bench of the High Court was in error in setting aside the appointment of the appellant and interfering with the judgment of the learned Single Judge.

For the reasons which we have indicated in the present judgment, we allow the appeal and set aside the judgment of the High Court dated 2 April 2008. In consequence, the writ petition filed by the third respondent shall stand dismissed.

However, there shall be no order as to costs.

…………………………………………………………………...….J (DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD) ..……………………………………………………………….....J (HEMANT GUPTA) NEW DELHI January 24, 2019 6 ITEM NO.104 COURT NO.12 SECTION XV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Civil Appeal No(s). 1690 of 2010 GANGARAM Appellant(s) VERSUS THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS. Respondent(s) Date : 24-01-2019 This appeal was called on for hearing today. CORAM :
D. Vinod Shivappa vs Nanda Belliappa

The facts of the cases are similar and the same question arises for consideration in each of the appeals. The only distinction is that whereas in Criminal Appeal Nos. 1256 and 1257 of 2004 the notices sent to the appellant were returned with the endorsement "addressee always absent during delivery time. Hence returned to sender", in the remaining five cases the notices were returned with the endorsement "party not in station. Arrival not known."

The representative facts are taken from Criminal Appeal No. 1255 of 2004.

The case of the complainant-respondent is that the appellant had issued a cheque in his favour for a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- on November 7, 2003. The cheque was presented to the bank for encashment but the same was returned on March 6, 2004 with the endorsement "funds insufficient". The respondent issued a legal notice to the appellant calling upon him to make the payment. The said notice was sent on March 17, 2004 by registered post but the same was returned unserved on March 25, 2004 with an endorsement "party not in station arrival not known". The respondent thereafter filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Act on May 4, 2004. By order dated June 2, 2004 the learned Magistrate passed orders under Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure registering a criminal case and issuing process against the appellant.

In (2001) 6 SCC 463 : Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. vs. Galaxy Traders & Agencies Ltd. and others, the facts were that a cheque given by the respondent to the appellant was dishonoured on May 28, 1998 of which intimation was received by the appellant on June 2, 1998. On June 13, 1998 the appellant issued to the respondent and one of its partners the statutory notice under Section 138 of Act and received the postal acknowledgement of the notice on June 15, 1998 which was the last date of limitation on the basis of the said notice. However, the appellant again presented the cheque on July 1, 1998 which was again dishonoured on July 2, 1998. The appellant sent a second notice of dishonour of the cheque but the respondent having received the notice on July 27, 1998 did not make the payment. On September 9, 1998 the appellant filed a complaint. The respondent moved a petition before the High Court for quashing of the complaint under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the ground that it was time barred since acknowledgement of the first notice was received by the complainant on June 15, 1998 and the complaint was filed after July 15, 1998. The appellant on the other hand contended that the respondent's having denied receipt of the first notice, the only course open to the appellant was to present the cheque again. The High Court quashed the complaint as time barred. This Court allowed the appeal of the appellant after considering the authorities cited at the bar and observed :-

These appeals are, therefore, dismissed. The trial court is directed to proceed with the complaint cases in accordance with law. Nothing stated above shall be construed as expression of an opinion on the merit of the matters.
State Of West Bengal & Ors vs Sri Sri Lakshmi Janardan Thakur & Ors

The background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

Being aggrieved by the said judgment an appeal (O.A. No. 2175/2002) was preferred before the Tribunal claiming properties of the Deity as absolute and not the personal property of its Shebaits.

The Tribunal after hearing the parties rejected the OA holding that the contentions raised by the applicants before it were rightly rejected by the appellate authority for cogent reasons based on solid and unassailable materials.

(Underlined for emphasis) Similarly, in the writ Petition filed one of the prayers was as follows :

In the fitness of things, it would be appropriate to set aside the order of the High Court and remand the matter to it for consideration afresh. It shall consider the effect of the order in the earlier writ petition, effect of the submission made and the written statement and the prayer in the writ petition. These aspects shall be considered along with other materials to be placed by the parties. Needless to say on consideration of all the relevant material the High Court shall dispose of the writ petition in accordance with law.

In the ultimate result the appeal is allowed, with no orders as to costs.
Bharmal Medical Store Civil Hospital ... vs State Of M.P.

2. The questions involved in these appeals being common, there being a minor variation in facts, they have been heard 1 together and are being disposed by a common order.   Suffice to observe, that in the limited nature of the controversy, we propose   to   take   notice   of   the   facts   only   to   the   extent necessary for purposes of the present order.

7. The   shop   premises,   as   observed   above,   are   not unauthorized structures, but leases have long expired and no steps have been taken by the appellants for renewal of their leases.     The   rent   was   Rs.300­400/­.    At   the  time  of   initial settlement also, it was done with the appellants on the basis of open bid.   Considering the long passage of time since the lease   has   expired,   and   the   appellants   cannot   claim   an indefeasible   right   to   continue   irrespective   of   such considerations, we deem it proper to observe that it shall be open for the respondents to hold an open bid for the shops in question   inside   the   hospital   premises.     The   appellants   can also   participate   in   the   same.     Needless   to   say   that   the settlement will have to be made with the highest bidder.  The present order cannot be construed as a complete embargo on 5 the   respondents   with   regard   to   the   shop   premises   for   all times to come.  Any future eventuality, for justifiable reasons, will always leave the authority a discretion for closure of the shops for valid and germane reasons.

8. Till such fresh bids are held, the appellants shall not be disturbed but shall continue to pay the enhanced rate of rent in the manner provided for in the agreement with effect from the date of the present order.  If there are any arrears of rent, it shall also be deposited at the agreed rate within a period of four weeks.   The impugned orders of the High Court are set aside.  The appeals are allowed.
Arindam Chattopadhyay & Ors vs State Of West Bengal & Ors

3. On being selected by the West Bengal Public Service Commission, the appellants were appointed as Assistant Child Development Project Officer (ACDPO) in 1986-87. After about 12 years, the competent authority issued order dated 7.7.1999 with the concurrence of the Finance Department of the Government whereby the petitioners were temporarily transferred to ICDS projects to act as CDPOs in their existing pay scales.

4. The appellants made representation dated 15.2.2011 with the prayer that they may either be promoted to the post of CDPO or be given pay scale of that post by asserting that they had been discharging the duties of the post of CDPO.

5. After about 2 years, the appellants filed O.A. No.330/2003 before the State Administrative Tribunal, West Bengal (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) and prayed for issue of a direction to the respondents to pay them salary and allowances in the scale of Rs.5500-11200 attached to the post of CDPO from the date they were working as acting CDPO, i.e., 7.7.1999. In paragraph 4 of the application, the appellants averred as under:

6. In the counter filed by the respondents, it was not disputed that the appellants had been discharging the duties of CDPO but it was averred that there is no recruitment rule exclusively for the post of CDPO which is governed by West Bengal Junior Welfare Services Rules (for short, “the Rules”). This is evinced from paragraphs 3 and 4 of the reply, which are extracted below:

8. The appellants challenged the order of the Tribunal in WPST No.775/2005 but could not convince the High Court to entertain their prayer. Their writ petition was dismissed vide order dated 5.12.2011, the relevant portion of which is extracted below:

Save those stated above and those which are matters of record all other allegations made in these paragraphs are denied.”

The applicants are also quite under the WBSR rules. The said rule does not provide that holding the temporary charge of a higher post qualify an officer to enjoy the higher pay scale which is enjoyed by an office of a higher cadre service normally holding the post. Considering all these aspects we do not find any merit to consider the prayer of the applicants. Hence, the application is dismissed on contest.”

14. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order as also the one passed by the Tribunal are set aside and the respondents are directed to pay salary and allowances to the appellants in the pay scale of the post of CDPO with effect from the date they took charge of those posts. This exercise must be completed within 8 weeks from today. The arrears shall be paid to the appellants within a period of 9 months.

15. Since regular promotions to the post of CDPO have not been made for more than one decade, we direct the respondents to do the needful within a period of six months from today.
Municipal Corporation, Jaipur vs Shankarlal

2. A brief reference to the factual aspects would be necessary for deciding the controversy involved. The respondent filed a Writ Petition for a direction to the appellant-Corporation to regularize the land i.e. plot No.113, Near Central School, Bajaj Nagar, Tonk Road, Jaipur. It was the case of the writ petitioner that the regularization was to be done in view of the decision taken by the Jaipur Development Authority (in short 'JDA') dated 6.11.1989. It is to be noted that the land originally belonged to the Jaipur Urban Improvement Trust, which body was succeeded by the JDA and finally by the appellant-Corporation. The respondent stated that he had filed an application for regularization before the JDA on 18.9.1984.

10. The inevitable result is that orders of learned Single Judge are to be set aside, which we direct. It is however directed that the application dated 27.9.1996 filed by the respondent shall be dealt with by the appellant-Corporation in accordance with law. The amount which is stated to have been deposited shall be adjusted against the amount, if any, fixed by the appellant-Corporation, if it chooses to regularize the land in question. However, if it decides not to regularize the land the amount shall be returned to the respondent with interest at the rate of 9% from the date of deposit till the amount is refunded.

11. The appeals are disposed of. No costs.
C.C.E., Guntur vs M/S. Mining & Allied Machinery ...

Brief facts of the case are that the appellants-complainants entrusted consignments containing men’s wearing apparels in December 1994 to Respondent No. 1 American Consolidation Services Ltd., Akruti Trade Centre, 402, 4th Floor, Andheri (East), Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as “ACS”), and cargo receipts were issued to them by Respondent No. 1. As per the cargo receipts so issued, the consignments were to the order of Respondent No. 2 Central Fidelity Bank, Richmond VA, USA. Respondent No. 1 on its part handed over the consignments to respondent No. 4 M/s. Hoeg Lines, Lief Hoegh & Co., A/S Oslo, Norway/M/s. American President Lines Limited, Tarde Plaza 2nd Floor, 414 Veer Savarkar Marg, Prabhadevi, Mumbai, for delivery of the consignments at the port of destination. It is alleged that in the Bill of Lading issued by the shipping carriers, name of consignee was changed from Central Fidelity Bank to Coronet Group Inc. besides there being several other changes in the name and description of the shipper as Cavalier Shipping Co. When payment was not received till March, 1995, the appellants/ complainants made enquiry about the consignments. After servicing legal notice, appellant Virender Khullar filed a complaint for an amount of Rs.35,31,601.15 in respect of 300 cartons containing men’s apparels through cargo receipt Nos. 34307, 34308 and 34309, and appellant Girish Chander filed the complaint for an amount of Rs.29,17,844.76 for 220 cartons containing men’s apparels sent through cargo receipt Nos. 34116, 34117 and 34118, before NCDRC, New Delhi. Initially complaints were filed only as against Respondent No. 1, i.e. American Consolidation Services Ltd. (ACS).

We have considered the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellants and that of Respondent No. 2 and perused the record. Copies of cargo slips, which are on record, disclose that notified party/intermediary consignee was Respondent No. 3 Zip Code, 2615 Elmhurst Lane, Portsmouth, VA 23701, USA. In the column of name of consignee “To order of Central Fidelity Bank Richmond VA” is mentioned. Cargo slips further disclose that (Vessel, Voyage) Hoegh Clipper/Eagle Prestige was export carrier.

For the reasons discussed above, we find no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the NCDRC and, as such, these appeals are liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, both the appeals are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

August 16, 2016.
M/S R.N. Jadi & Brothers And Ors vs Subhashchandra

2. The controversy lies within a very narrow compass. The appellants-defendants were issued summons by the trial Court. They did not file the written statement within 90 days from the date of service of summons and there was a delay of two days. The trial Court accepted the written statement which was filed beyond 90 days despite the objection raised by the plaintiff-respondent. The order of the trial Court was challenged before the Karnataka High Court in a Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short the 'Constitution') on the ground that the provision of Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short the 'CPC) was mandatory and the trial Judge could not have accepted the written statement filed beyond 90 days from the date of service. The writ petition was allowed by order dated 30.8.2004. A Writ Appeal was filed which was held to be not maintainable.

13. Processual law is not to be a tyrant but a servant, not an obstruction but an aid to justice. Procedural prescriptions are the handmaid and not the mistress, a lubricant, not a resistant in the administration of justice.

19. In view of what has been stated above, we set aside the impugned orders of the High Court. The written statement already filed shall be duly taken note of by the trial Court. The appeal is allowed but without any order as to costs.
B.D.Khunte vs Union Of India & Ors

Statutory remedies under the Army Act, 1950 having proved ineffective, the appellant filed OA No.5 of 2009 before the Armed Forces Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, which was heard and dismissed by the Tribunal by its order dated 27th August, 2009. The appellant then filed Writ Petition No.4652 of 2010 before the High Court of Delhi which too failed and was dismissed by a Division Bench of the High Court by its order dated 5th July, 2011. The present appeal assails the correctness of the judgment passed by the High Court and that passed by the Armed Forces Appellate Tribunal. It also challenges the conviction of the appellant for the offence of murder and the sentence awarded to him by the Summary General Court Martial.

20. In the result this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.

Criminal Appeal No.2328 OF 2014 (@ Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8457 of 2014 Crl M.P. No.15455/2014) Delay condoned Leave granted.

In view of our order of even date passed in Criminal Appeal No.242 of 2012, this appeal, filed by the appellant-B.D. Khunte, also fails and is, hereby, dismissed.
Agricultural Market Committee A.P.Etc vs M/S M.K.Exports, A.P.Etc.Etc

3. For the sake of convenience, we shall notice the facts from one of the appeals, viz., Agricultural Market Committee, A.P. Vs. M/s M.K. Exports, A.P. The respondents - M/s M.K. Exports in that appeal are traders and were given licence by the appellants for doing business in prawns, a notified commodity under the Act. For the assessment years 1998-99 and 1999-2000, the assessment of market fees was done after giving exemption to a certain turnover on purchases effected outside the notified area of the appellants on the basis of the returns submitted by the respondents under the Act.

6. The respondents challenged the show cause notices dated June 27, 2002 by filing writ petitions before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. The High Court disposed of the writ petitions on June 14, 2007 and directed the respondents (petitioners therein) to respond to the show cause notices and the appellants were asked to pass appropriate order after considering their replies.

7. The respondents filed their reply and raised certain objections to the re-assessment proceedings initiated under Section 12-B(5) of the Act.

9. The respondents challenged the order dated November 26, 2007 by filing revision applications before the Director of Marketing under Section 12-F of the Act. These revision applications were dismissed on March 26, 2008.

10. Thereafter demand notices were issued by the appellants to the respondents to pay the market fees determined under Section 12-B(5). The respondents did not comply with the demand notices. Notices were then issued to the respondents to show cause as to why criminal proceedings be not initiated against them under Section 23 of the Act. The respondents did not respond to the show cause notices nor made any payment of outstanding market fees. The appellants were then constrained to file criminal complaints against the respondents in the Court of the II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District, A.P.

24. In the result, appeals are allowed and the judgment of the High Court dated April 21, 2010 is set aside.