L-NLProc/TathyaNyaya-and-FactLegalLlama-NyayaScrape-Datasets huggingface dataset:
John K Abraham vs Simon C Abraham & Anr

3. The issue involved in this appeal arises under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The complaint was preferred by the respondent No.1 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pathanamthitta alleging that appellant borrowed a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- from him and issued a cheque for the said sum on 20.06.2001 drawn on Indian Overseas Bank, Plankamon branch in discharge of the debt. It is the further case of the respondent--complainant that when the cheque was presented for encashment through Pathanamthitta District Co-operative Bank, Kozhencherry branch, the same was returned by the bankers with the endorsement ‘insufficient funds in the account of the accused’. The respondent-complainant stated to have issued a lawyer’s notice on 14.07.2001, which was received by the appellant on 16.07.2001, but yet there was no reply from the appellant. Based on the above averments alleged in the complaint, the case was tried by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate.

4. The respondent herein was examined as PW.1 and Exhibits P-1 to P-6 were marked. None was examined on the side of the appellant. In the questioning of the appellant made under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., the appellant took the stand that his son took the cheque from him and that if at all anything was to be recovered, it had to be made from the son of the appellant, since the appellant had not borrowed any money.

5. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate after considering the oral and documentary evidence led on behalf of the respondent-complainant, held that the respondent-complainant was making a prevaricating statement as regards the issuance of the cheque, that he was not even aware of the date when the amount was said to have been borrowed by the appellant, that there was material alteration in the instrument and, therefore, the respondent failed to establish a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Consequently, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate found the appellant not guilty and acquitted him under Section 255(1) of Cr.P.C. The respondent preferred the appeal in the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam and by the impugned order the High Court reversed the judgment of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, convicted the appellant and imposed the sentence to pay a fine of Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation under Section 357(1) of Cr.P.C. In default of making the payment of the fine amount, the appellant was directed to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months.

11. Having regard to our above conclusion, this appeal stands allowed. The order impugned is set-aside, the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant is also set aside.

December 05, 2013.
State Of M.P vs Pradeep Sharma

deceased), resident of village Gopalpur, Tehsil Chaurai, District Chhindwara, Madhya Pradesh and Pradeep Sharma (respondent herein), resident of the same village, were having enmity with each other on account of election to the post of Sarpanch.

b) On 10.09.2011, Pradeep Sharma (respondent herein), in order to get rid of Rajesh Singh Thakur (the deceased), conspired along with other accused persons and managed to call him to the Pawar Tea House, Chhindwara on the pretext of setting up of a tower in a field where they offered him poisoned milk rabri (sweet dish).

c) After consuming the same, when he left the place to meet his sister, his condition started getting deteriorated because of vomiting and diarrhea. Immediately, the father of the deceased took him to the District Hospital, Chhindwara wherefrom he was referred to the Government Hospital, Chhindwara.

d) Since there was no improvement in his condition, on 11.09.2011, he was shifted to the Care Hospital, Nagpur where he took his last breath. The hospital certified the cause of death to be poisoning. On the very same day, after sending the information to the Police Station, Sitabardi, Nagpur, the body was sent for the post mortem.

e) Inder Singh Thakur-father of the deceased submitted a written complaint to the Police Station Kotwali, Chhindwara on 13.09.2011 suspecting the role of the respondents herein. After investigation, a First Information Report (in short ‘the FIR’) being No. 1034/2011 dated 18.10.2011 was registered under Sections 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short ‘the IPC’).

h) On 21.11.2012, arrest warrants were issued against Pradeep Sharma, Sudhir Sharma and Gudda @ Naresh Raghuvanshi but the same were returned to the Court without service. Since the accused persons were not traceable, on 29.11.2012, a proclamation under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short ‘the Code’) was issued against them for their appearance to answer the complaint.

13) In the light of what is stated above, the impugned orders of the High Court dated 10.01.2013 and 17.01.2013 in Misc. Criminal Case Nos. 9996 of 2012 and 15283 of 2012 respectively are set aside. Consequently, the subsequent order of the CJM dated 20.02.2013 in Crime No. 1034 of 2011 releasing the accused on bail after taking them into custody in compliance with the impugned order of the High Court is also set aside.

14) In view of the same, both the respondents/accused are directed to surrender before the court concerned within a period of two weeks failing which the trial Court is directed to take them into custody and send them to jail.

15) Both the appeals are allowed on the above terms.

………….…………………………CJI.

(P. SATHASIVAM) .………….……………………………J. (RANJAN GOGOI) NEW DELHI;

DECEMBER 6, 2013.
State Of Rajasthan & Ors vs M/S Basant Agrotech (India) Ltd

3. The facts giving rise to the present litigation in a nut-shell are as under:

12. For the aforestated reasons, in our opinion, the reasons assigned by the High Court for not appointing the appellants to the post in question, are not correct and therefore, we quash and set aside the impugned judgment so far as it pertains to the present two appellants. The appeals are allowed with no order as to costs.

13. We direct the High Court and the respondent-State to give appointment to the appellants to the post in question with effect from the date on which they ought to have been appointed, however, we clarify that they shall not be paid salary for the period during which they have not worked as District and Sessions Judges. The appellants shall also be placed at the appropriate place in the seniority list of the District and Sessions Judges after considering their position in the merit list. We are sure that the respondent- High Court as well as the respondent-State shall do the needful for giving the appointment to the appellants at an early date.

4. For the reasons recorded in Civil Appeals arising out of SLP(C) Nos.23807-23808 of 2012, the present appeals are allowed and it is directed that the High Court as well as the respondent-State will do the needful for giving appointment to the appellant with retrospective effect i.e. from the date on which she ought to have been appointed, however, she shall not be paid salary for the period during which she has not worked as a District & Sessions Judge. We are sure that the respondents will do the needful for the appointment of the appellant at an early date.

5. The appeals are allowed with no order as to costs.
Sebastiao Luis Fernandes(Dead)By ... vs K.V.P.Shastri & Ors

4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties issues were framed and the matter went for trial and both the parties adduced evidence. On appreciation of evidence on record the trial court decreed the suit vide its judgment dated 29.4.1978. The trial court decreed the suit holding it to be tenable and directed the defendants to acknowledge that the plaintiff along with her children is the lawful owner in possession of 1/3rd share of the suit schedule property and to release that 1/3rd share in favour of the plaintiff, by declaring to be null and void the inscription done in the Land Registration Office in respect to the said property which is described under No. 16413 in so far as it covered the 1/3rd part of the plaintiff. Further, the defendants were directed to pay damages caused to the original plaintiff by depriving her of the income corresponding to her 1/3rd portion. The trial court held that the alleged prescription does not operate because the defendant Shastri was never in the possession of the property, much less in good faith. It was also observed that it is proved from the proceedings by a fact otherwise admitted that the plaintiff has her residential house in the suit schedule property with a common wall with the house of the defendant-Tereza and this is one more important fact to corroborate the case of the plaintiff, for being relatives descending from the same common trunk having ancestral house.

26. For the reasons stated above, the appeal is dismissed, there will be no order as to costs. Orders passed by this Court on 27.8.1999 and 3.9.2001 stand vacated.
Arasmeta Captive Power Co. Pvt. Ltd & An vs Lafarge India P. Ltd

5. Regard being had to the narrow compass of the controversy that has emanated for consideration before this Court, we need not dwell upon the factual matrix in extenso. Suffice it to state that the appellant No. 1 is a company carrying on business in generation of power. The respondent owns 49% equity of the appellant No. 1 company and the appellant No. 2 owns 51% equity of the appellant No. 1 company. The appellant-company had entered into two agreements with the respondent for supply of power to the respondent. The first agreement, namely, a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) was entered into on 10.2.2005 and the second agreement of similar nature was entered into on 1.11.2007 for supply of power. In course of subsistence of the agreements dispute arose between the parties relating to amounts that is due and payable. The appellants treated the dispute raised to be a “billing dispute” and sought to appoint an expert in accordance with clause 16.2 of the agreements and, accordingly, communicated with the respondent vide letter dated 4.5.2012 proposing for appointment of one of the three persons of expertise and repute for appointment as an expert in respect of both the PPAs. The appellant No.1 requested the Confederation of Indian Industry vide letter dated 30.5.2012 to appoint a suitable expert. As put forth by the appellant, the respondent did not accede to resolve the dispute by way of appointing an expert instead, it moved the High Court for appointment of an arbitrator.

8. The High Court adverted to the meanings of “billing date”, “billing period”, “billing year, “clarification notice” and various terms used in the agreement, scanned the anatomy of clause 9.3 of the agreement that deals with “billing disputes” and arrived at the conclusion that disputes raised do not come within the purview of sub-clause (a) of clause 9.3 and, accordingly, appointed an arbitrator, as has been stated hereinbefore.

126. We have no reason to differ with the classification carved out in National Insurance Co. as it is very much in conformity with the judgment of the Constitution Bench in SBP.” [Emphasis added]

42. In view of our foregoing analysis we sum up our conclusions as follows: -

44. Ex consequenti, the appeal is allowed in part to the extent as has been stated in our conclusions. There shall be no order as to costs.

December 12, 2013.

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).29651/2013 (From the judgement and order dated 22/07/2013 in AA No.24/2012 of The HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR) ARASMETA CAPTIVE POWER CO. PVT. LTD & AN Petitioner(s) VERSUS LAFARGE INDIA P. LTD Respondent(s) Date: 12/12/2013 This Petition was called on for Judgment today.

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dipak Misra pronounced the Judgment of the Bench comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil R. Dave and His Lordship.

Leave granted.

The Civil Appeal is allowed in part.

(Signed reportable Judgment is placed on the file)
Fakhruzamma vs State Of Jharkhand & Anr

3. The Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Giridih, in Complaint Case No.281 of 2003, T.R. No.835 OF 2006, took cognizance against the Appellant for various offences under Sections 456, 323, 504, 506, 342, 386, 201, 120B and 304 IPC. That order was challenged by the Appellant before the High Court by filing Crl. M.P. No.1669 of 2006 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. stating that in the absence of previous sanction of the State Government, as per the provisions of Section 197 Cr.P.C., the learned Magistrate could not have taken cognizance of the offences against the appellant who was a Sub- Inspector of Police, since the act alleged was committed while discharging his official duty. The High Court rejected that contention by holding that since the competent authority had removed the Appellant from service, sanction to prosecute under Section 197 Cr.P.C. was not warranted. Aggrieved by the same, this appeal has been preferred.

6. The Appellant’s case is that he had arrested one Satyam Mirza (since deceased) for offences under Section 376(g) and 302 IPC. The case was registered at Police Station Gande where the Appellant was officiating as an office-in-charge. According to the Appellant, while returning from the spot led by the deceased in search of desi katta, the deceased jumped out of the running police vehicle TATA 407 and disappeared in the dark night in a dense forest and could not be located. Later, on 13.1.2003, he was found dead in the deep forest. The wife of the deceased Satyam Mirza filed a complaint against the Police stating that the deceased had died during police custody and to take appropriate action against the officials concerned. The learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, on 4.7.2006, took cognizance of that complaint and registered case against the Appellant. As already stated, for quashing of that complaint, the Appellant approached the High Court on the ground that no sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. was obtained before taking cognizance by the learned Magistrate. The scope of Section 197 Cr.P.C. has to be examined in the light of the Jharkhand Police Manual. Section 197 Cr.P.C. is extracted hereinbelow for an easy reference :-

It shall be kept in mind that if any enquiry has been initiated by the District Magistrate, a report of the result shall be sent to him for information. If required, the file of departmental proceeding shall also be sent with it.

(e) xxx xxx xxx

(f) xxx xxx xxx.”

10. In the circumstances, we find no merit in this Appeal and the same stands dismissed.
Ghanshyam vs State Of Rajasthan

At the time of filing of this appeal, there were two respondents, respondent no.1 Ram Dayal – the complainant and respondent no.2 – the State of Rajasthan. Name of the complainant-Respondent no.1 has been deleted vide this Court’s order dated 13th September, 2010 as the appellant could not take steps of service upon him.

The complainant alleged that on 1.10.1994, he gave three gold chains weighing 6.5 tola to the accused-appellant for making a new design chain after melting the old chains. But according to the complainant, neither the three old chains nor a new gold chain were returned to him. On 2.11.1994, the complainant sent a telegram asking the accused appellant to return the gold chains. He further sent a legal notice through his advocate to the appellant on 6.5.1995 making allegation of taking the gold chains and not returning the same. All the allegations were denied by the appellant. The complainant then filed a complaint under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code (in short ‘CrPC’) for an offence under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code. Statements of witnesses were taken under Section 161, CrPC by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gangapur City. The complainant further filed an application under Section 190 of CrPC before the Additional Metropolitan Magistrate bringing to his notice the commission of the alleged offence. Investigation was conducted by the SHO, PS Gangapur City, District Sawai Madhopur and report was submitted by him who concluded that the FIR was false and the case was without merit. The complainant filed a protest petition against the said report. The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, while considering the protest petition, confirmed the negative report. The complainant challenged the said Order of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate before the Additional Sessions Judge by filing a protest petition. The Court of Additional Sessions Judge set aside the Order of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate and sent the matter back to the Additional Metropolitan Magistrate to rehear the matter after considering the documents on record. The Additional Metropolitan Magistrate considered the entire evidence on record and came to the conclusion that no case was made out and the protest petition filed by the complainant deserved to be dismissed.

11. For the reasons stated supra, the appeal is dismissed. The stay granted by this Court vide order dated 30th October, 2009 stands vacated.
Tummala Ve vs State Of A.P

2. The prosecution case is that the appellant was married to Neelima on 12.02.2003. She went to cohabit with him after five months in July 2003 but returned within four days informing her family that the accused used to harass her physically and mentally both for want of Rs. 2,00,000/- as additional dowry. Gandham Anuradha @ Chinni - A3 and Thummala Sreelakshmi – A-4, the sister and brother-in-law of the appellant, took her back for Varalakshmi Viratam. She was again harassed for the same demand. So, the father – PW1, brought her back to his house. At home, the deceased – Neelima, expressed her intention to commit suicide. The father invited the appellant to his house for Diwali on 23.10.2003 but he refused to come. At about 7.30 p.m. when the family was celebrating the festival, Neelima consumed pesticide in her bed room. She was found there on the bed with the pesticide tin next to her. The family shifted her to Elect Critical Care Hospital but she died. The father reported the matter to the police, who registered a First Information Report. The next day, the police recovered the pesticide tin, the bed sheet and the towel. The Mandal Revenue Officer (MRO) examined the father, who gave his statement. Hence, the prosecution.

11. We thus find that in the present case there is sufficient evidence to hold that the deceased had been subjected to cruelty and harassment by her husband in connection with a demand for dowry soon before her death. We have arrived at this conclusion even after excluding allegations of cruelty and harassment to which the deceased was subjected during the first period of her cohabitation; after which she had returned.

14. In the circumstances, we find there is no merit in the appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.
M/S Prp Export & Etc vs Chief Sec. Govt. Of Tamil Nadu & Ors

2. Alleging that the Petitioner firm had indulged in unauthorized quarrying, the Respondent officials as well as the District Collector and Superintendent of Police took steps to seal the Petitioners’ factory premises, vehicles and instruments so as to suspend the quarrying operations in respect of the above-mentioned quarries. The Petitioners, therefore, approached the Madras High Court by filing W.P. (MD) Nos.12441 and 12442 of 2012, which were heard by a learned Single Judge.

8. The Government and the District Administration received lot of complaints with regard to illegal quarrying in the Madurai District, which led the State Government directing the District Administration to verify the complaints. The District Collector inspected various quarries and submitted a preliminary report dated 19.5.2012. Subsequent to the preliminary report, the District Administration decided to conduct a comprehensive and scientific survey in all the 175 granite quarries functioning in the Madurai District. Considering the vast area involved, the District Administration requested the Commissioner of Geology and Mining to depute officers from their department for carrying on the inspection. Consequently, the Commissioner of Geology and Mining vide proceedings dated 4.8.2012 deputed six Assistant Geologists, two Surveyors and two Sub Inspectors of Survey from various other Districts to assist the inspection team constituted by the District Administration. After conducting a comprehensive and scientific survey, the Deputy Director and the Assistant Director of Geology and Mining submitted an Evaluation Report on 23.11.2012 on 88 granite quarries. Among them, 16 quarries belonged to the Petitioner. The inspection could not be carried out in 22 granite quarries due to water logging and among that 18 quarries belonged to the Petitioner.

No costs.”

13. We are of the view that, since several writ petitions are pending consideration before the High Court, at this stage, it would not be appropriate to pronounce upon the various contentions raised by learned senior counsel on either side on merits of the case, especially in the light of the materials leading to the issuance of the suspension orders dated 14.12.2012 and the show cause notices dated Nil.12.2012. We also notice that the Division Bench of the High Court has issued some equitable directions taking into consideration the interest of the workers and also for honouring some statutory obligations of the petitioner firm. We, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment dated 15.2.2013 and the special leave petitions filed against those orders stand dismissed.
Bhusawal Municipal Council vs Nivrutti Ramchandra Phalak & Ors

4. Facts and circumstances giving rise to these appeals are that:

20. In view of above, the appeals are devoid of any merit. In such a fact-situation, the court cannot sit limply and allow the defaulter to go scot free and force the person seeking protection to loose hope. The court cannot adopt an indifferent and passive attitude in such circumstances. The appellant is directed to make the payment of the enhanced amount of compensation within a period of 10 weeks from today, failing which it must restore the possession of the suit land to the persons-aggrieved who in turn would refund the entire amount received as compensation.

With these observations, the appeals are dismissed.
Ashfaq Ahm vs Namrata Chopra & Ors

2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are that:

C. After realizing that the appellants got cheated, there had been claims and counter claims between the parties and ultimately several notices were exchanged between the parties. The appellants claimed a refund of rupees fifty lakhs with interest, while the respondents wanted to forfeit the earnest money for non-payment of further instalments as agreed by the parties. The appellants filed a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. on 26.8.2010.

Hence, this appeal

5. As the case raises a large number of disputed questions of fact, we are of the considered opinion that there was no occasion for the High Court to allow the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and quash the criminal proceedings qua the said respondents.

6. In view of the above, we set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 15.3.2012 and allow the appeal. The learned trial court is directed to proceed against the said respondents in accordance with law.