L-NLProc/TathyaNyaya-and-FactLegalLlama-NyayaScrape-Datasets huggingface dataset:
Association For Enviornment ... vs State Of Kerala & Ors

3. The ancient Roman Empire developed a legal theory known as the “Doctrine of the Public Trust”. It was founded on the premise that certain common properties such as air, sea, water and forests are of immense importance to the people in general and they must be held by the Government as a trustee for the free and unimpeded use by the general public and it would be wholly unjustified to make them a subject of private ownership. The doctrine enjoins upon the Government to protect the resources for the enjoyment of the general public rather than to permit their use for private ownership or commercial exploitation to satisfy the greed of few.

(iii) The restaurant is meant to serve large number of people who come during Sivarathri celebrations.

(iv) The construction of restaurant will neither obstruct free flow of water in the river nor cause damage to the ecology of the area.

(v) There will be no diversion of water and the strength of the pillars of Marthanda Varma Bridge will not be affected.

SD/-

Sanction is therefore accorded for the Project for the renovation of Manalppuram Park and construction of Restaurant at Aluva at an estimated cost of Rs.55,72,432 /-(Rupees Fifty Five Lakhs Seventy Two Thousand Four Hundred and Thirty two only) .

The expenditure on this account will be met from the head of account “3452-80-800-90(29)-Upgradation and creation of infrastructure facilities at Tourist Centres (Plan)”. The work will be executed through DTPC, Ernakulam and will be completed within a period of six months.

By Order of the Governor D. Saraswathy Amma, Deputy Secretary.”

21. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. As a sequel to this, the writ petition filed by the appellant is allowed and the respondents are directed to demolish the structure raised for establishing a restaurant as part of renovation and beautification of Manalpuram Park at Aluva. The needful be done within a period of three months from today.
Veer Pal Singh vs Secretary,Ministry Of Defence

2. The appellant was enrolled in the Army (Corps of Signals) on 20.6.1972 in Medical Category “AYE”. Before his enrolment, the appellant was subjected to medical examination, the report (Annexure R-II) of which is reproduced below:

19. As a corollary to the above discussion, we hold that the impugned order as also orders dated 14.7.2011 and 16.9.2011 passed by the Tribunal are legally unsustainable.

20. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The orders passed by the Tribunal are set aside and the respondents are directed to refer the case to Review Medical Board for reassessing the medical condition of the appellant and find out whether at the time of discharge from service he was suffering from a disease which made him unfit to continue in service and whether he would be entitled to disability pension.
S. Anil Kumar @ Anil Kumar Ganna vs State Of Karnataka

The Appellate Court imposed sentence of rigorous imprisonment for seven years for the offence punishable under Section 304-B of the IPC and rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the IPC. The Appellate Court further ordered that the sentences shall run concurrently.

2. The case of the prosecution is briefly stated below:

Therefore, Anil Kumar put his hand through the ventilator and unlatched the door and opened it. When they went inside, they found that Meena Kumari had hanged herself from the fan and had committed suicide. The news spread and later, a friend of the accused Sri Shanthilal (PW-9) came and he gave on phone a message to Meena Kumari's elder brother S. Parasmal (PW-1), who was residing in Mysore. Intimation sent to him was that Meena Kumari was seriously ill and they should come immediately. On their way to Bangalore, Parasmal (PW-1), learnt that Meena Kumari had committed suicide. They reached the house of the accused at about 5.00 p.m. and after ascertaining the matter, Parasmal (PW-1) went to the Police Station and informed the Police. The Police came to the house and after inspecting the spot, took the complaint of PW-1. On the basis of the same, he registered a case in Cr.No.33/92 against the accused Nos.1 and 2. Sri. M.V. Chengappa, PSI, Hebbal Police Station (PW-23) started with the investigation and further investigation was taken up by, Praveena, ACP, Yeshwanthpur Sub-Division (PW-

24). The investigation disclosed that accused Nos.3 to 5 were also involved in the matter. Therefore, they were added in the list of the accused. After further investigation by S.V.D. Souza (PW-25), Police Inspector, ADC, COD, Bangalore and his successor, B. Venkataramana, Police Inspector, ADC, COD, Bangalore (PW-26) a chargesheet was placed against the accused for the offences punishable under Section 498-A and 304-B of the IPC and Sections 3,4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

3. The accused pleaded not guilty of the charges and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined in all 26 witnesses and closed its case. As per prosecution PWs-1, 10,11,12,13,15 and 18 were examined with regard to the payment of dowry. To substantiate the allegation of the dowry harassment they examined PWs-10,11,12,13,14,16 and 21 and other witnesses who saw the body hanging with fan. PWs-2, 7 and 19 were Panch witnesses. PW- 17, Dr. Thirunavakkarasu was the Professor, Forensic Medicine, who conducted the post-mortem examination. PW-21, was the Taluk Executive Magistrate, who conducted inquest proceedings. PWs.22 to 26 are the Police Officers.

15. For the reasons aforesaid, we set aside the impugned judgment dated 4th January, 2006 in Criminal Appeal No.1042 of 1999 passed by the High Court, allow the appeal by restoring the judgment dated 2nd August, 1999 of the trial court. The appellant is on bail, his bail bonds stand discharged.
Union Of India & Anr vs M/S Swiss Garnier Life Sciences & Ors

3. The factual matrix of the case is as follows:

10. Aggrieved by the review order dated 2nd July, 2009 passed in review applications, the respondents approached the Delhi High Court by filing writ petitions. During the pendency of the writ petitions, 2nd appellant requested the Pharma Industry Associations, i.e., Indian Drug Manufacturers’ Association (IDMA), Organisation of Pharmaceutical Producers of India (OPPI) and the Indian Pharmaceutical Association and 8 known bulk drug manufacturers to send the cost details of Doxofylline bulk drug, within a stipulated period. A reminder was also issued on 31st August, 2009. Twelve known manufacturers including M/s Lupin Ltd. were requested on 11th August, 2009 to furnish the data I Form-III for the fixation of price of Doxofylline. Appellant No.2 also requested the manufacturers on 9th October, 2009 to furnish the detailed information in Form-III of the DPCO, 1995 in respect of the revision in the price fixation of the Doxofylline based formulation.

Provided that the Government may, if it considers necessary, by order revise the price so intimated by the manufacturer and upon such revision, the manufacturer shall not sell such formulation at a price exceeding the price so revised.

24. In answer to this, the stand of the appellants is that ‘Doxofylline’ is derivative of Theophylline, therefore, by virtue of being a derivative, ipso facto, is itself a bulk drug.

25. In view of such stand taken by the parties, it is necessary to decide on the question whether the ‘Doxofylline’ is a derivative of ‘Theophylline’.

28. In the present case, what we find is that the present stand taken by the respondents is contrary to their stand taken before the authorities while they applied for grant of registration of Doxofylline 400 mg. tablets. The record as enclosed by the respondent-Mars Therapeutics Ltd. reveals the following facts:

41. Consequently, the appeals are allowed; the judgments and orders dated 19th May, 2010 and 15th March, 2011 passed respectively by the Single Judge and the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court are set aside. The writ petitions preferred by the respondents in the High Court are dismissed. The parties shall bear their own cost.
S.P. Malhotra vs P.N.B. & Ors

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

D. The Disciplinary Authority partly agreed with the findings on charge Nos. (ii) and (iii), but disagreed with the findings qua charge Nos. (i) and (iv), and vide order dated 27.4.1985 imposed the punishment of dismissal from service.

F. Being aggrieved of the order of the Appellate Authority, the appellant filed review petition under Regulation 18 of the Regulations and the said review petition was also dismissed vide order dated 19.8.1987.

Hence, this appeal.

11. In fact, not furnishing the copy of the recorded reasons for disagreement from the enquiry report itself causes the prejudice to the delinquent and therefore, it has to be understood in an entirely different context than that of the issue involved in ECIL (supra).

Thus, in view of the above, the appeal is allowed. The judgment and order of the Division Bench is set aside and that of the learned Single Judge is restored. No costs.
Ramanlal Deochand Shah vs State Of Maharashtra & Anr

3. In SLP (C) No.354 of 2012 the appellants prayed for enhancement of compensation payable towards compulsory acquisition of plots no.33, 34, 45 and 46 measuring 1366 square meters each, situated at village Saidapur, Taluq-Karad, District Satara, Maharashtra. The public purpose underlying the acquisition was the setting up of a Polytechnic Engineering College at Karad. The appellant-land owners claimed compensation @ Rs.25/- per sq. ft. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Satara, however, made an Award dated 14th March, 1988 determining the compensation @ Rs.26.25 per sq. mtr. only. Dissatisfied with the award made by the Collector the appellant-land owners got the matter referred to the Civil Court for determination of the market value of the land under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act besides solatium and interest payable on the same. A similar reference was also made in SLP (C) No.395 of 2012 for plot no. 47 admeasuring 1366 sq. mtrs. of the same village.

14. The failure or the omission to lead evidence to prove the claim appears in the above context to be a case of some kind of misconception about the legal requirement as to evidence needed to prove cases of enhancement of compensation. We do not in that view see any reason to deny another opportunity to the landowners to prove their cases by adducing evidence in support of their claim for enhancement. Since, however, this opportunity is being granted ex debito justitiae, we deem it fit to direct that if the Reference Court eventually comes to the conclusion that a higher amount was due and payable to the appellant-owners, such higher amount including solatium due thereon would not earn interest for the period between the date of the judgment of the Reference Court and the date of this order. These appeals are with that direction allowed, the judgments and orders impugned in the same modified to the extent that while the enhancement order by the Reference Court shall stand set aside, the matters shall stand remanded to the Reference Court for a fresh disposal in accordance with law after giving to the landowners opportunity to lead evidence in support of their claims for higher compensation. No costs.
Bihar State Text Book Workers Union vs State Of Bihar & Anr

4. The appellant-Union approached the High Court of Patna with a prayer that the Divisional Commissioner, Patna be directed to nominate a Member of the Departmental Promotion Committee which should in turn, consider the case of the members of the appellant-Union for promotion to the post of Operatives. A Single Judge of the Patna High Court granted the prayer and directed the Departmental Promotion Committee to consider the case of the members of the appellant-Union for promotion to the post of Operatives and if they are found qualified to hold the post, pass appropriate order in accordance with law. In an intra court appeal carried by the respondent No.2 Corporation, on the ground that though the Helpers were appointed 20 years ago and were all non-matriculates, a Division Bench declined to uphold the relief granted by the Single Judge and allowed the appeal and dismissed the writ petition.

For Appellant(s) Mr. M.P. Jha,Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Gopal Singh,Adv.

Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.A. Bobde pronounced the judgment of the Bench comprising of Hon'ble Dr. Justice B.S. Chauhan and His Lordship.

Leave granted.

Appeal is allowed in terms of the signed non-reportable judgment.

(Signed non-reportable judgment is placed on the file)
Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors

3. By Notification dated 24.9.1973 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the Act’) the Government of Maharashtra proposed the acquisition of four plots, Town Planning Scheme as described hereinabove for Posts and Telegraph Offices. After considering the report submitted by the Collector under Section 5A(2), the State Government issued declaration dated 7.11.1975 under Section 6(1) of the Act. The Special Land Acquisition Officer (respondent No.2) passed award dated 31.3.1982 and fixed market value of Plot Nos. 1087 and 1088 as Rs.14,14,282/- and Rs.13,29,897/-, respectively. Assistant Engineer (Phone) (L.A., Mumbai Telephones) deposited the amount of compensation on 9.8.1982.

13,29,897/- on 30.3.82 totaling to Rs. 27.65 lakhs including establishment charges. Inspite of voluminous correspondences and frequent visuals and meetings with you to get the vacant possession of the plots, the plot is not yet made over to MTNL. At present plot is fully encroached and you are not in a position to give vacant possession of the said plots.

8. After 37 years of initiation of the acquisition proceedings and 28 years of the pronouncement of award by respondent No.2, the appellant filed writ petition with the prayers about which reference has been made hereinabove. The Division Bench of the High Court disposed of the writ petition vide order dated 30.7.2010. Due to some mistake, that order was recalled on 13.8.2010 and was substituted with the impugned order, the relevant portions of which are extracted below:

18. In Hari Narain v. Badri Das (supra), this Court considered the prayer made by the respondent for revocation of leave granted to the appellant who was a tenant in the suit premises. The respondent had sued the appellant for eviction on the ground of default in payment of rent and house tax. The trial Court dismissed the suit. The appellate Court set aside the judgment of the trial Court and decreed the suit. The second appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed by the High Court. In the petition for special leave, the appellant made inaccurate statement about his status as a statutory tenant and on the issue of payment of rent. Shri M.C. Setalvad, appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that he had not urged the particular grounds at the time of grant of leave. While agreeing with Shri Setalvad, this Court refused to accept the explanation given by the appellant for the inaccurate statement made in the special leave petition and revoked the leave. This is evinced from the following observations made in the judgment:

July 11, 2013.
Karri Ram Babu & Ors vs Chairman,State Level Police ...

2. Appellants participated in the process of selection for appointment to the post of police constables S.C.T.P.C. (Civil) (Men) initiated as per Notification dated 30.12.2008 issued by the first respondent. According to the appellants, as there was inordinate delay in the announcement of results of the written examination, they staged a dharna in front of the District Police Office, Kakinada along with many other candidates on 17.04.2010 demanding announcement of the results without delay. It is alleged that the protestors were removed by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Kakinada II Police Station and were taken to the police station and were released after some time. Subsequently, the results were announced. Appellants were successful and, on being selected, they were sent for the nine months induction training w.e.f. 17.04.2011. While they were undergoing the training, Memorandum dated 20.04.2011 was issued by the first respondent stating that the appellants were selected on account of an oversight regarding their involvement in a criminal case and, hence, their selection should be cancelled. Accordingly, the Principal of the Police Training College discharged the appellants and four others as per memorandum dated 21.4.2011. The appellants approached the Andhra Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal, which by order dated 28.09.2011, dismissed their applications holding as follows:

8. The appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment dated 10.04.2012 of the High Court, order dated 28.09.2011of the Administrative Tribunal and the impugned memoranda dated 20.04.2011 and 21.04.2011 are set aside. The appellants shall be re-inducted for training immediately. They shall be permitted to complete the training to the extent of the unexpired period. Their original seniority shall be restored. The appellants shall be entitled to continuity of service at par with their compeers. However, we make it clear that they shall not be entitled to any emoluments during the period they had been kept out. But it is made clear that if this order is not implemented within a period of one month from the date of production of copy of this judgment before the first respondent, the appellants shall be entitled to all service benefits including the salary for the period they have been kept out and the officers responsible for the delay will be personally liable for the same.

9. We find that there were four candidates proceeded against on this issue. All the four were before the State Administrative Tribunal and the High Court. Apparently, one among them has not traveled to Delhi, to this Court. If the same is owing to financial constraints, justice shall not be denied to him on that count. For doing complete justice in this cause, we make it clear that the benefit of this judgment shall be available to the third petitioner before the Tribunal and the High Court (Vanamadi Beema Raju), in case he is interested, who shall be duly informed.

10. There is no order as to costs.

July 11, 2013.

”
M/S Tvc Skyshop Ltd vs M/S Reliance Communciation & Infra.Ltd

2. The appellant and respondent entered into an agreement whereby the respondent provided 54 mobile phone connections to the former in 2003. Due to non-payment of the amount due, the respondent sent legal notice dated 22.9.2004 and demanded Rs.13,31,800.59. After some time, the respondent filed a petition under Sections 433 and 434 of the Companies Act, 1956, which came to be registered as Company Petition No.910/2005 for winding up of the appellant by alleging that it has failed to pay Rs.19,69,417.11 despite demand. The learned Company Judge passed order dated 13.4.2006 and directed the appellant to deposit a sum of Rs.11,00,000/- to avoid advertisement of the petition filed by the respondent.

3. The respondent also filed a Summary Suit No.1989/2006 under Order XXXVII for passing a decree of Rs.25,83,078.35 with interest at the rate of 30% per annum from the date of suit. The summon issued by the Court was duly served upon the appellant, but neither an application was filed for leave to defend nor any one appeared on the date specified in the summons. Therefore, the learned Single Judge passed order dated 7.11.2006 and decreed the suit in terms of clauses

4. Power to set aside decree.—After decree the Court may, under special circumstances set aside the decree, and if necessary stay or set aside execution, and may give leave to the defendant to appear to the summons and to defend the suit, if it seems reasonable to the Court so to do, and on such terms as the Court thinks fit.”

13. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.

July 15, 2013.
State Of Punjab & Anr vs Baljit Singh & Ors

3. The facts leading to this appeal are as under:

5. (b) In any other case, make over the case to the Chief Judicial Magistrate who shall try the case himself.”

1. (i) If the case is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, or if the Magistrate taking cognizance is Chief Judicial Magistrate in which cases it is provided that those cases will be committed for trial to the Court of Session,

13. In the circumstances, we allow this appeal, and set aside the order passed by the High Court. The proceeding will now stand restored to the file of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate who shall proceed with the trial.

14. Mr. Namjoshi submits that the appellants are aggrieved by the pardon granted to the aforesaid Jhunjhunwala, and they intend to apply for cancellation of -8- that order. It would be for them to apply before the Magistrate and it is for the Magistrate concerned to take appropriate decision on such application.

15. The appeal is allowed accordingly.

...................J. (H.L.GOKHALE) ....................J. (MADAN B. LOKUR) New Delhi, July 16, 2013.
M/S Hotel Queen Road P.Ltd.& Ors vs Ram Parshotam Mittal & Ors

4. The appeal was permitted to be withdrawn. In normal circumstances, the present appellants, who were the respondents in the said appeal, should not have been aggrieved by withdrawal of the appeal but they are aggrieved because of certain observations made by the High Court while permitting withdrawal of the appeal. The said observations, which have been objected to, are reproduced hereinbelow :

5. It was mainly submitted that no such observation could have been made by the Court while permitting withdrawal of the appeal and the interim relief which had been granted earlier in the appeal should not have been continued even after withdrawal or disposal of the said appeal. It is clear from the aforestated order that the interim relief which had been granted during the pendency of the appeal had been extended till 10th May, 2010.

17. In view of the aforestated judgments, it is very clear that if a petition is not maintainable and is ultimately withdrawn, the court should not continue interim relief for a period beyond withdrawal of the writ petition. However, the aforestated observation would not apply to a case where the matter is heard on merits and after considering the facts of the case the court permits withdrawal of the case. In such a case, the court is at liberty to extend the interim relief or can grant interim relief for a limited period after recording reasons for the same.

18. In view of the facts of the case, in our opinion, the High Court was not in error while extending the interim relief for some time while permitting withdrawal of the appeal as the High Court has also recorded the reasons for which the interim relief was extended till 10.5.2010.

20. In the circumstances, we dismiss the appeal with no order as to costs.

Interim relief which had been granted earlier by this Court stands vacated.

S.L.P. (C) No. (CC No.20730) of 2009

1. In view of the fact that FAO (OS) No.349 of 2009 had been permitted to be withdrawn by the subsequent order passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi on 20th April, 2010, the special leave petition does not survive as the impugned order has already been withdrawn. The special leave petition is dismissed as infructuous.

………….....................CJI (ALTAMAS KABIR) ........................................J. (ANIL R. DAVE) New Delhi July 16, 2013