L-NLProc/TathyaNyaya-and-FactLegalLlama-NyayaScrape-Datasets huggingface dataset:
Sher Singh @ Partapa vs State Of Haryana

1 This Appeal has been filed against the Judgment dated 16.12.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissing the appeal and affirming the conviction and sentence passed against the Appellant by the Trial Court under Sections 304B and 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The marriage between the deceased, Harjinder Kaur and the accused-Appellant took place on 22.2.1997. The case of the prosecution is that two months prior to her death on one of her visits to her parental home, the deceased informed her two brothers of cruelty connected with dowry demands meted out to her by her husband and his family members. They, thereafter, conveyed this information to their uncle- Complainant, Angrej Singh viz. that the accused and his family have been harassing her with a demand for a motorcycle and a fridge. The Complainant advised her to return to her matrimonial house with the assurance that a motorcycle and a fridge would be arranged upon the marriage of her brothers. On 7.2.1998, one Rajwant Singh informed the Complainant that the deceased had committed suicide by consuming some poisonous substance at her matrimonial house in village Danoli. The Complainant, along with the brothers of the deceased and other members of the village, rushed to the matrimonial house of the deceased and after confirming her death, lodged an FIR on the next day i.e., on 8.2.1998.

(3) No person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.

19 We must consider, lastly, whether the prosecution has successfully 'shown' that the deceased was subjected to cruelty which was connected with dowry demands. We may usefully reiterate here that keeping in perspective the use of "shown" instead of "proved" the onus would stand satisfied on the anvil of preponderance of evidence.

24 In this analysis, the Appeal is allowed and the impugned Judgment convicting and punishing the Appellant is set aside.

January 09, 2015.
Chairman&Mng; Dir. Cent.Bank Of ... vs Cent.Bank Of Ind.Sc/St Emp.Wel.Asn& ...

Before we revert to the fulcrum of the issue and give our answer thereto, we deem it apposite to recapitulate in brief the historical facts which have led to the present lis.

Before discussing the main issue involved, it would be in the fitness of things to iron out some of the creases surrounding the main issue. In fact, this exercise would facilitate understanding the precise tenor of the issue that needs to be addressed and answered.

It is not in dispute that the rule of reservation is followed for promotions from clerical grade to the lowest rank in the officer grade. The question, however, is as to whether there is any provision for reservation when promotion from a particular rank in the officer grade is to be made to the next rank in the said grade, namely, from Scale-I to Scale-II, Scale-II to Scale-III and so on.

In view of the above, Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 320 of 2010 is disposed of with directions to the appellant Banks to carry out the promotions by adopting the procedure mentioned in this judgment.

In the peculiar facts of this case, we leave the parties to bear their own costs.

JANUARY 09, 2015.
Shasidhar & Ors vs Ashwini Uma Mathod & Anr

3. In order to appreciate the short issue involved in this appeal, it is necessary to state a few relevant facts:

5. Basavantayya had extensive properties. On 21.07.1991, Basavantayya died leaving behind him the aforementioned members of his family. On his death and also on the death of his one unmarried daughter Rajeshwari, disputes arose between his legal representatives regarding their respective shares in the properties and also regarding ownership of some members of his family in relation to certain properties standing in the name of members of his family. The disputes unfortunately could not be settled amicably which led to filing of civil suit by the daughters of defendant No.1 from his first wife-Uma (deceased) against the other members of the family, i.e., their father, step-mother and step-sisters for determination of their respective shares, partition by meets and bounds and separate possession in the suit properties held and possessed by the members of the family of late Basavantayya . The defendants contested the civil suit by denying the plaintiffs' claim. The trial Court framed issues. Parties adduced evidence.

5. In view of the above salutary principles, on going through the impugned judgment, we feel that the High Court has failed to discharge the obligation placed on it as a first appellate court. In our view, the judgment under appeal is cryptic and none of the relevant aspects have even been noticed. The appeal has been decided in an unsatisfactory manner. Our careful perusal of the judgment in the regular first appeal shows that it falls short of considerations which are expected from the court of first appeal. Accordingly, without going into the merits of the claim of both parties, we set aside the impugned judgment and decree of the High Court and remand the regular first appeal to the High Court for its fresh disposal in accordance with law."

27. It is for these reasons, we are unable to uphold the impugned judgment of the High Court.

28. The appeal thus succeeds and is, accordingly, allowed. The impugned judgment is set aside and the case is remanded to the High Court for deciding the first appeal and cross-objections afresh, keeping in view the principle of law laid down by this Court as mentioned above.

29. However, we make it clear that we have not applied our mind to the merits of the issues involved in the case and hence, the High Court would decide the appeal strictly in accordance with law on merits uninfluenced by any of our observations, which we have refrained from making on merits. Needless to observe, the High Court will do so after affording an opportunity of hearing to all the parties.

30. Since the case is quite old, we request the High Court to expedite its hearing and dispose of the case preferably within six months.

January 13, 2015.
Kanhsingh & Anr vs Tukaram & Ors

On 02.07.2006, Deependra Singh Chouhan, son of the appellants herein, aged 27 years, was driving the motor cycle No. MP-09-LM-8244 along with his friend Ashok Sharma. The aforesaid motor cycle which was being ridden by Deependra met with an accident when it was hit by tanker No. MP-14-B-6645 driven by Tukaram, respondent No. 1 herein. Deependra Singh succumbed to his injuries during the course of treatment.

The claimant-appellants, parents of the deceased filed a claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jawra, District Ratlam (M.P.) (in short 'the Tribunal') under Section 166 of the M.V. Act, 1988, for a compensation of Rs.27,85,000/-. The Tribunal by its judgment and award partly allowed the Claim Petition by awarding a total sum of Rs.12,10,014/- .

Being aggrieved by the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, the appellants filed Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2918 of 2009 before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore. The High Court by its judgment and award dated 23.07.2012 partly allowed the said appeal and disposed of the same with an enhancement of Rs.2,00,000/-. Hence, this appeal.

Further, we award Rs.5,00,190/- towards medical expenses incurred towards medical treatment.

In the result, the appellants shall be entitled to compensation under the following heads:

Accordingly, we allow this appeal in awarding Rs.24,25,604/- with interest @9% p.a. The respondent-Insurance Company shall either pay by way of demand draft in favour of the appellants or deposit the same with interest as awarded before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jawara, District Ratlam, after deducting the amount already paid to the appellants, if any, within six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment. No Costs.
Vijaya Ukarda Athor(Athawale) vs State Of Maharashtra And Others

4. Aggrieved by the order of non-grant of appointment, appellant herein filed a Writ Petition No.1341 of 2013 before the High Court of Bombay. Vide order dated 18.03.2013, the High Court dismissed the aforesaid writ petition holding that on the date of appointment, the appellant was a married daughter and the policy decision was taken by the State Government on 26.2.2013 for grant of compassionate appointment to married daughter and before the said date the appellant was not eligible for any appointment. The appellant filed a review application before the High Court which was also dismissed vide order dated 22.11.2013. In these appeals, the appellant assails the above orders.

12. In the result, the impugned Orders of the High Court in Writ Petition No.1341 of 2013 dated 18.03.2013 and Review Application No. 511 of 2013 dated 22.11.2013 are set aside and the appeals are allowed and the matter is remitted back to the High Court for consideration of the matter afresh. The High Court shall give sufficient opportunity to the appellant and the respondents and consider the matter afresh expeditiously and in accordance with law.

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 20840-20841/2014 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 18/03/2013 in WP No. 1341/2013,22/11/2013 in MA No. 511/2013,22/11/2013 in WP No. 1341/2013 passed by the High Court Of Bombay At Nagpur) VIJAYA UKARDA ATHOR(ATHAWALE) Petitioner(s) VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS Respondent(s) Date : 14/01/2015 These petitions were called on for pronouncement of JUDGMENT today.

Delay condoned.

Leave granted.

The appeals are allowed in terms of the signed order.

(Signed Reportable judgment is placed on the file)
K.V.S.Ram vs Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corp

3. Brief facts which led to the filing of this appeal are as under:- The appellant was appointed on the post of Driver in the Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation on 3.9.1985 and was working on the same post since then. The appellant was served with article of charge dated 3.9.1990 alleging that he had secured appointment by producing a false transfer certificate. An enquiry was initiated on 15.7.1992 and the appellant submitted his explanation to the aforesaid charges. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 13.3.2002 holding the appellant guilty for his misconduct. After affording opportunity to the appellant to show cause against the proposed punishment, the disciplinary authority passed the order imposing punishment of dismissal from service vide order dated 1.10.2004.

5. Being aggrieved, respondent-corporation filed a writ petition before the High Court. Vide order dated 31.1.2008, learned Single Judge of the High Court allowed the writ petition holding that the punishment of dismissal from service was proportionate to the proved misconduct against the appellant. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant-workman preferred appeal before the Division Bench challenging the legality and correctness of the said order. The Division Bench dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant on the ground that the charges levelled against the appellant are serious in nature and that the punishment of dismissal from service imposed by the disciplinary authority was just and proper. In this appeal, the appellant assails the correctness of the above judgment.

16. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment passed by the High Court is set aside and the award passed by the Labour Court is restored. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs.

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 5236/2014 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 03/09/2012 in WA No. 390/2008 passed by the High Court Of Karnataka At Bangalore) K.V.S.RAM Petitioner(s) VERSUS BANGALORE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORT CORP Respondent(s) Date : 14/01/2015 This petition was called on for pronouncement of JUDGMENT today.

For Petitioner(s) Mr. V. N. Raghupathy,Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. S. N. Bhat,Adv.

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice R. Banumathi pronounced the judgment of the Bench comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice V. Gopala Gowda and Hon'ble Mrs. Justice R. Banumathi.

Delay condoned.

Leave granted.

The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.

(Signed Reportable judgment is placed on the file)
State Of Kerala & Ors.Etc.Etc vs Arun George & Ors.Etc.Etc

4. Briefly stated the background facts are as under:-

6. Aggrieved by the said order, State of Kerala preferred an appeal bearing W.A. NO. 2529 of 2005. In the meantime, many writ petitions were filed on similar grounds. By the common judgment dated 18.08.2007, Division Bench allowed the appeal filed by the State of Kerala and dismissed the other writ petitions. Division Bench held that the State can always impose conditions while according sanction and the condition so imposed, that the new appointments are without any additional financial commitment to the State, is perfectly legal and valid and the private college managements are bound by it.

19. In our considered view, the learned Single Judge of the High Court and the Division Bench in review petitions rightly held that respondent nos. 1 to 7 are entitled to the payment of salary for the relevant period and we find no reason to interfere with the same.

20. In the result, these appeals are dismissed and consequently, the other connected appeals stand dismissed.

JANUARY 14, 2015.
National Bank Ltd vs Ghanshyam Das Agarwal & Ors

2 On 20th April, 1999, on the request of the Importer, the Appellant had opened a Letter of Credit for the aforementioned sum of USD 352,250 on Bank of India, Calcutta (Negotiating Bank) in favour of the Plaintiff- Exporter; the American Express Bank Ltd. Calcutta, is Defendant No.4 in the said civil suit bearing CS No.678 of 1999, as the advising Bank of the Appellant. The contract was placed on the Plaintiff/Exporter for a consignment of non-basmati rice to be exported from India to the Importer in Bangladesh by railroad. One of the terms of the Letter of Credit was that one set of non-negotiable shipping documents would be couriered after the consignment was despatched to the opener of the LC, namely, the Appellant before us. This was done on 11th May, 1999 and thereupon the Bill of Exchange drawn by the Exporter was discounted by its banker, namely, Bank of India, which thereupon drew another Bill of Exchange upon the Importer. It is alleged that the Appellant received the documentation on 19th May, 1999, and on that very day pointed out the existence of certain discrepancies therein to the Negotiating Bank. The Appellant's case is that it received a letter from the Importer on 1st June, 1999, stating that the documents were not acceptable and that the goods were damaged, and there were also shortages therein. In its telex dated 24th June, 1999, the Appellant suppressed the stand of the Importer and stated as follows:-

6 The interim Order, it may be recalled, did not restrain or interdict the operation of the impugned Judgment and has in actuality, rendered the Appeal infructuous, since the LC amounts have left the Appellant's coffers. In view of the admission of fact made by the Appellant, we think the Court was correct in concluding in the impugned Judgment that a money decree for the sum secured by the subject Letter of Credit (for USD 352,250) should be passed. The Appeal is without merit and is dismissed with costs.

January 14, 2015.
Sunil vs Sakshi @ Shweta & Anr

3. The factual matrix of the case leading to the filing of the present appeal is as follows:

Additional ground was taken that when the police proceeded for arrest of father-in-law of the 1st respondent-wife and others in connection with criminal case, they came forward for settlement and offered to give a flat measuring 800 to 850 sq.ft. at Belgaum, etc. and that on 18th August, 2012 in the presence of elders, the parties returned the ornaments etc., the appellant-husband agreed to give Rs.45 lakhs and flat, the wife consented for mutual divorce and gave a Vakalatnama to the husband through one Sri Shripad Raikar, but the wife was kept in dark as to the filing of divorce petition by the husband. The said Vakalatnama alleged to have been misused by the husband in the Matrimonial Case No.86/2012 by giving it to his counsel's senior-Sri B.M. Chougale, without 1st respondent's knowledge. She took further plea that she never appeared before the Family Court much less on 17th September, 2012 to 20th September, 2012 as she was in Mangalore during the said period. Thus, it was alleged that the husband obtained the decree of divorce by playing fraud on the Family Court.

16. The High Court giving reference to the plaint and the written statement presumed that 1st respondent-wife never appeared before the Family Court and failed to notice the aforesaid order dated 17th September, 2012 which make it clear that 1st respondent-wife, who was the respondent in the said case, was present in the court and one Shri B.M. Chougale, Advocate filed Vakalatnama for the 1st respondent-wife with permission. It is clear from the record that only after hearing both the parties the ex parte order against 1st respondent-wife was set aside. The matter was then sent for conciliation to 27th September, 2012. On 27th September, 2012 and 5th November, 2013, the parties were absent. The case was adjourned to 27th November, 2012 on which date the appellant-husband was present and the 1st respondent-wife was absent. The Family Court adjourned the case to 3rd January, 2013 for appellant-husband's evidence observing that 1st respondent-wife had not filed objections. On 7th January, 2013, the appellant-husband was present. He filed affidavit evidence, got himself examined as P.W.-1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P4. This fact was noticed by the High Court at paragraph 2 where brief facts of the case leading to the filing of the appeal was dealt with, which in fact has been reflected in our preceding paragraphs wherein factual matrix of the case has been noticed.

18. For the reason aforesaid, we have no other option but to set aside the impugned judgment dated 9th July, 2014 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench in M.F.A. No.22031/2013(FC). It is accordingly set aside. The appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

JANUARY 14, 2015.
Narendra Kumar Amin vs Cbi & Anr

3. The appellant/accused was arrested on 4.4.2013 for an offence which had taken place on 15.6.2004, which is popularly known as the fake encounter death of Ishrat Jahan. The offence alleged against the appellant was punishable with life imprisonment or death and what is popularly called Default Bail becomes the indefeasible right on the expiry of 90 days in the event of non filing of police report by then. On 3.7.2013 the first respondent viz. CBI filed what they called the charge sheet which is alleged by the appellant as a misnomer because it does not comply with the statutory requirement of police report under Sections 173 (2) and 173(5) of Cr.P.C.

4. The appellant by a written application dated 4.7.2013 claimed his right to be released on bail. According to the appellant, the last extension of detention in custody was made on 21.6.2013 and the period of remand was extended upto 5.7.2013. There was no existing order of remand to custody between 5.7.2013 and 8.7.2013. Therefore, his custody during that period is illegal. It is further stated by Mr. Ram Jethmalani, the learned senior counsel for the appellant that there was no judicial order of remand made on 3.7.2013 and the custody was illegal for all the days between 3.7.2013 and 8.7.2013.

17. We find no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed.
Manohar Singh vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors

2. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 23rd November, 2011 passed by the High Court of Rajasthan at Jaipur in Criminal Revision No.6 of 2009 by the complainant against the acquittal of the respondents of offences other than Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC") and grant of probation to them setting aside the sentence of imprisonment imposed by the trial Court. As many as 13 accused were tried on the allegations that they assaulted and caused injuries to PW-5- Manohar Singh, appellant, Devi Singh PW-4, Maan Singh PW-11 and Karan Singh PW-1 on 29th October, 1980 at around 2 P.M. with a view to disturb the possession of the complainant party on the agricultural land in question.

3. The trial Court convicted the accused including respondent Nos.2 to 11 and one Mool Singh son of Jaswant Singh who died during pendency of the proceedings. Respondent Nos.2 to 11 were convicted and sentenced as follows :

9. After giving due consideration to the rival submissions, we are of the view that while it may not be appropriate to impose the sentence of imprisonment at this stage, having regard to the nature and extent of injuries, the appellant-complainant deserves to be duly compensated.

* * *

11. To say the least, the order contains no reasons, much less 'special or adequate reasons'. The sentence has been reduced in a rather mechanical manner without proper application of mind."

30. Recording of reasons in cases where the order is subject to further appeal is very important from yet another angle. An appellate court or the authority ought to have the advantage of examining the reasons that prevailed with the court or the authority making the order. Conversely, absence of reasons in an appealable order deprives the appellate court or the authority of that advantage and casts an onerous responsibility upon it to examine and determine the question on its own."

(emphasis supplied)

16. In the present case, in the absence of any evidence about the medical expenses, loss of earning etc. and the financial capacity of the accused, we are of the view that the appellant needs to be paid a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation under Section 357(3) within two months by the surviving respondents. In default the surviving-respondents will undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. Since compensation is being directed to be paid, we set aside the sentence of fine of Rs.5,000/-.

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in above terms.