L-NLProc/TathyaNyaya-and-FactLegalLlama-NyayaScrape-Datasets huggingface dataset:
Mohammad Hafizullah & Ors vs Javed Akhtar & Ors

3. As the property belonged to the aforestated three persons and as it was not possible to divide the same by metes and bounds, a prayer had been made to the High Court for permitting sale of three-fourth share of the property belonging to Shri Nagendra Bala Guha and Shri Hari Ranjan Guha to present respondent nos.1 and 2 i.e. Shri Javed Akhtar and Shri Parvez Akhtar, who are brothers. In the said proceedings, Smt. Kanak Nahar had also filed an application with a prayer that she be also permitted to sell her one-fourth share to the present respondent nos.1 and 2 – Shri Javed Akhtar and Parvez Akhtar.

8. The dispute involved in this appeal starts with an application submitted by Smt. Shamima Khanam to the High Court with a grievance that Smt. Kanak Nahar was not showing her willingness to execute the sale deed with respect to her share in her favour, though she was bound to sell her share to Shri Javed Akhtar and Shri Parvez Akhtar or their nominee. The said application was granted on 28th June, 1985, whereby Smt. Kanak Nahar was directed to execute sale deed and convey her share to Smt. Shamima Khanam, as a nominee of Shri Javed Akhtar and Shri Parvez Akhtar.

11. So far as the present litigation is concerned, it was initiated by the present respondent nos.1 and 2 i.e. Shri Javed Akhtar and Shri Parvez Akhtar by filing Suit No.209A of 1986 for specific performance against Smt. Kanak Nahar praying that she be directed to effect sale of her share in their favour in pursuance of the order passed by the High Court dated 16th July, 1984 and the sale deed dated 11th July, 1985, whereby the property had been sold to Smt. Shamima Khanam be cancelled. The said suit had been decreed by an order dated 22nd September, 2005 and being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 22nd September, 2005, an appeal had been filed by the heirs of Smt. Shamima Khanam in whose favour Smt. Kanak Nahar had already conveyed her share. The said appeal has been dismissed by the impugned judgment.

24. For the aforestated reasons, we are of the view that there is no substance in this appeal and the orders passed by the Courts below are just and proper and therefore, we dismiss the appeal with no order as to costs.

…………………….J (ANIL R. DAVE) ……………………..J (R.K. AGRAWAL) NEW DELHI JULY 02, 2014
Mannan Sk & Ors vs State Of West Bengal & Anr

3 A petty altercation over a tape recorder resulted in a major incident in which bombs were hurled at Rupchand Sk – the father of PW8-Nurul Islam. Incident occurred on 13/12/1992. Rupchand Sk suffered grievous injuries. He was taken to a local hospital. From there he was shifted to Berhampore hospital where he breathed his last. On 14/12/1992 a complaint was lodged by the son of deceased Rupchand Sk - PW8-Nurul Islam with Raghunathpur Police Station on the basis of which FIR was registered. In the FIR PW8- Nurul Islam named nine persons. Initially the case was registered under Sections 447, 326 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Explosives Substances Act. After the death of Rupchand Sk, Section 304 of the Penal Code was added.

20. In the ultimate analysis we must record that the impugned order merits no interference. We must, however, clarify that oversight of the prosecution is not appreciated by us. But cause of justice must not be allowed to suffer because of the oversight of the prosecution. We also make it clear that whether deceased Rupchand Sk’s statement recorded by PW15-SI Dayal Mukherjee is a dying declaration or not, what is its evidentiary value are questions on which we have not expressed any opinion. If any observation of ours directly or indirectly touches upon this aspect, we make it clear that it is not our final opinion. The trial court seized of the case shall deal with it independently.

21. In the result the appeal is dismissed. Needless to say that the interim orders passed by this Court on 15/10/2012, 03/05/2013 and 27/01/2014 staying the impugned order dated 11/05/2012 passed by the Calcutta High Court in CRR No. 2385 of 2011 are vacated. The trial court shall proceed with the case and ensure that it is concluded at the earliest.
Anil Gupta vs Star India Pvt.Ltd.& Anr

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

6. The High Court by impugned judgment while recording the stand taken by respondent no.1 that letter dated 14.01.2004 constituted a valid notice under Section 138 of the Act and hence the complaint based on second notice against respondent no.2-Company was not maintainable and quashed the summon issued by the Trial Court against respondent no.2-Company. However, so far as appellant is concerned, the High Court relying on decision of this Court in Anil Hada v. Indian Acrylic Ltd., (2000) 1 SCC 1, held that the proceeding against the Director can be issued even in absence of the Company being impleaded, The High Court further held that the summoning order was valid since the first notice was not addressed to the appellant and the second notice which was also addressed to the appellant was issued within time and. therefore, criminal complaint filed by respondent no.1 against the appellant on the basis of the said notice is maintainable.

16. The appeal is allowed with aforesaid observation.
Dinesh Tiwari vs State Of U.P. & Anr

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

11. In this case, it is not alleged that the Sessions Judge has not followed Sections 226 and 227 Cr.P.C before framing the charge. Further, it is not the case of the appellant that the court has not given him hearing at the stage of discharge u/s 227 Cr.P.C. For framing of charge u/s 228, the judge is not required to record detail reasons as to why such charge is framed. On perusal of record and hearing the parties at the stage of discharge u/s 227 Cr.P.C. if the Judge is of opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence, he is competent to frame charge for such offence even if not mentioned in the charge sheet. We find no merit in this appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Chhel Singh vs M.G.B.Gramin Bank Pali & Ors

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

8. The learned Single Judge by judgment dated 31st March, 2009 allowed the writ petition, quashed the order of removal and directed the respondent to reinstate the appellant in service with all consequential benefits with following observation:

Charge No.3:

16. In view of the observation made above, the order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court cannot be upheld. We, accordingly, set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 10th May, 2012 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 850 of 2009 and upheld the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 31st March, 2009 in S.B. Civil Appeal Writ Petition No. 1702 of 1995. The respondents are directed to implement the direction and order dated 31st March, 2009 issued by the learned Single Judge within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.

17. The appeal is allowed with aforesaid observations and directions. No costs.
Sobaran Singh & Ors vs State Of M.P

Briefly, the case of the prosecution is as follows :

During investigation of the case, witnesses were examined and final report was filed. Charge under Section 302 IPC was framed against accused nos.1 to 3 and they were found guilty and were sentenced as narrated above and the appeal preferred by them was dismissed by the High Court. Challenging the same, accused nos.1 to 3 have preferred this appeal.

Our independent analysis of the evidence on the record coupled with the infirmities which we have noticed above has created an impression on our minds, that the prosecution has not been able to bring home guilt to the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt. The High Court even after noticing the infirmities, in our opinion, fell in error in confirming the conviction of the appellants. The reasons given by the High Court do not commend to us to sustain the conviction and sentence. They are neither sufficient nor adequate or cogent much less compelling to uphold the impugned judgment.

As a result of our above discussion, we hold that the case against the appellants has not been proved beyond a reasonable doubt and they are entitled to benefit of doubt. Their appeal consequently succeed and is allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed on them are set aside and they shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case.

July 7, 2014
Rohtas Bhankhar & Ors vs U.O.I. & Anr

On 23.12.1970 (1970 O.M.), the Department of Personnel issued Office Memorandum being O.M. No. 8/12/69-Estt.(SCT) relaxing standards in the case of Scheduled Castes/Tribes candidates in departmental competitive examinations and in departmental confirmation examinations. The said O.M. remained operative for about 17 years until O.M. No. 36012/23/96-Estt.(Res) dated 22.7.1997 was issued whereby the instructions contained in 1970 O.M. were withdrawn. Thereafter by Notification dated 30.11.1998, the Central Secretariat Service Section Officers' Grade/Stenographers' Grade 'B (Limited Departmental Competitive Examination) Regulations, 1964 (for short “1964 Regulations”) were amended by Central Secretariat Service Section Officers' Grade/Stenographers' Grade 'B (Limited Departmental Competitive Examination) Amendment Regulations, 1998 (for short “1998 Regulations”). The result of this amendment was that in 1964 Regulations, Regulation 7, sub-regulation (3) was omitted on and from 22.7.1997. The explanatory note appended to the above Notification reads as follows:

11. Consequently, civil appeals are allowed. The impugned order is set-aside. 1997 O.M. is declared illegal. The respondents are directed to modify the results in the Section Officers/Stenographers (Grade B/Grade-I) Limited Departmental Competitive Examination, 1996 by providing for reservation and extend all consequential reliefs to the appellants, if not granted so far. No costs.

.......................CJI.

CORAM :
C.K. Dasegowda & Ors vs State Of Karnataka

4. A complaint (Ex.-P1) was lodged on 11.8.1999 at 9:00 a.m. before the police. The Crime Case No. CC 728 of 2000 was registered by the Investigating Officer. The injured were taken to the hospital at around 2:00 p.m. PW-3 had sustained fracture of tibia, fibula and ankle. PW-6 had sustained simple injuries. PW-4 Jalaiah and PW-9- Shivanna are the eye witnesses to the incident.

5. The accused after their arrest, on their voluntary instance, M.O. 1 to M.O. 3 (clubs), M.O. 4 & M.O. 5 (iron blade of plough) and M.O. 6 (iron rod) were recovered. However, the said weapons had no incriminating marks like blood stains on them. The accused were charge-sheeted for committing offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 326, 307, read with Section 114 of IPC. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the alleged offences and registered CC No. 728 of 2000. The learned Magistrate complying with the provisions of Section 209 of CrPC, committed the case to the Sessions Court for trial since offences alleged under Section 307 are to be exclusively tried by that court. The accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case, got examined PW-1 to PW-10 and marked Ex. P-1 to P-9 and MOs. 1 to 6. The accused-appellants got marked Ex. D-1 and had also submitted their written reply while recording their statements under Section 313 of CrPC.

(emphasis supplied)

(2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate Court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law;

(5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.”

18. Therefore, based on the legal principles laid down by this Court in the abovementioned case and applying the same to the facts and evidence on record of this case, we are of the opinion that the High Court erred in setting aside the order of the acquittal of the appellants in the absence of any legal and factual evidence on record to prove the findings and reasons recorded in the judgment of the trial court as perverse. The contentions urged on behalf of the appellants are well founded as the same are in conformity with the legal principles laid down in the aforesaid cases.

19. We therefore, set aside the order of the High Court and reinforce the order of acquittal by the trial court. The appeal is allowed.
M/S Ajeet Seeds Ltd vs K Gopala Krishnaiah

3. For the purpose of disposal of this appeal, it is not necessary to narrate all the facts of the case. Suffice it to say that the complaint was filed alleging that the cheque issued by the respondent-accused for repayment of a legally recoverable debt bounced. On 17/6/2011 learned Magistrate issued process. The respondent-accused filed a criminal revision application before the Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad mainly on the assertion that the demand notice was not served on him. The said criminal revision application was rejected. Being aggrieved by the said order, the respondent-accused filed criminal writ petition in the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘the Cr.P.C.’). The High Court quashed the complaint on a short ground that on reading verification of the complaint dated 17/6/2011, it is explicit that there are no recitals to demonstrate that the notice issued under Section 138 of the NI Act by the complainant was served upon the respondent-accused on any specific date. The High Court observed that there is no proof that either the notice was served or it was returned unserved/unclaimed and that that there is no averment in the complaint about the same. The High Court concluded that, therefore, there could not be a cause of action to prosecute the accused under Section 138 of the NI Act. For coming to this conclusion, the High Court relied on the order of this Court in Shakti Travel & Tours v. State of Bihar & Anr[1]. The extract on which the High Court relied upon could be quoted :

13. In the circumstances, the impugned judgment is set aside and the instant complaint is restored. The appeal is allowed.

July 16, 2014.
Narinder Singh vs State Of H.P

3. The prosecution case in brief is that on 10.12.2002 at 11 AM the accused-appellant attempted to give a bribe of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant – the then Additional District Magistrate, Bharmour for inducing him, a public servant, to exercise his influence to give accused supply orders for the supply of double-decker beds by corrupt or illegal means. Thereafter, complainant called police officials and lodged the complaint. List of currency notes allegedly given by the accused were prepared and the police officials recorded the statements of other witnesses. The accused was charged with having committed the aforesaid offences, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

4. Complainant, who was in-charge of the administration of Bharmour area and sanctioning authority, appeared as PW-8 and stated that while he was sitting in his office accused entered in his office and talked with regard to the complaints of the quality of the furniture already supplied by him. Thereafter, accused offered to supply double decker beds for the Government Senior Secondary School, Holi. Upon which, complainant explained that there must be a rate contract of those articles and these articles should be of good quality. In the meantime, a senior assistant-PW2 came inside his office and had a discussion with the complainant with regard to purchase of some door mats and left office room. Thereafter, after using complainant’s office bathroom with permission, the accused did not sit on the chair but pulled out the drawer of the table of the complainant and put some currency notes in the drawer, which were immediately picked up by the complainant raising objection on it. On this the accused replied that this was his right (hak). The complainant then reprimanded him and informing the SHO Bharmour telephonically asked him to come to his office.

13. In the facts and circumstances of the case and seriousness of the offence, we fully agree with the view taken by the High Court. The impugned judgment, therefore, needs no interference. Hence this appeal has no merit and the same is dismissed.

14. The appellant-accused is accordingly directed to surrender within a period of one month from today to undergo the six months sentence awarded by the High Court, failing which the Trial Court shall take necessary steps. The Registry is directed to immediately communicate this order to the Trial Court.

………………………………J. (Ranjan Gogoi) ……………………………….J. (M.Y. Eqbal) New Delhi July 25, 2014
Secr.,Govt.Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors vs Grade-I Dass Officers Association & Ors

The Respondents in these Appeals were applicants before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (for short, ‘the Tribunal’). They preferred O.A. No.579 of 2002 against the Appellants seeking quashing of the order dated 10.8.2001 and also sought a direction to grant the scale of Rs.10000-325-15200/- to them and all other members of Grade-I (DASS) Officers’ Association from the date they had completed 24 years of regular service or 9.8.1999, whichever is later. The aforesaid claim was founded upon the Assured Career Progression Scheme (for short, ‘ACPS’) introduced w.e.f. 9.8.1999 which, inter alia, provides for benefit of second financial upgradation on completion of 24 years of regular service to such Central Government civilian employees who faced stagnation and had not been granted two promotions during their service tenure. The controversy or the dispute arose in the background of some relevant facts which are as follows.

8. The financial upgradation under the ACP Scheme shall be purely personal to the employee and shall have no relevance to his seniority position. As such, there shall be no additional financial upgradation for the senior employee on the ground that the junior employee in the grade has got pay-scale under the ACP Scheme;

9. On upgradation under the ACP Scheme, pay of an employee shall be fixed under the provisions of FR 22(I)(a)(1) subject to a minimum financial benefit of Rs.100/- as per the Department of Personnel and Training Office Memonradum No.1/6/97-Pay.I dated July 5, 1999. The financial benefit allowed under the ACP Scheme shall be final and no pay-fixation benefit shall accrue at the time of regular promotion, i.e,, posting against a functional post in the higher grade;

10. Grant of higher pay-scale under the ACP Scheme shall be conditional to the fact that an employee, while accepting the said benefit, shall be deemed to have given his unqualified acceptance for regular promotion on occurrence of vacancy subsequently. In case he refuses to accept the higher post on regular promotion subsequently, he shall be subject to normal debarment for regular promotion as prescribed in the general instructions in this regard. … … …

In the light of discussions made above, we find merit in the case of the Appellants. The Appeals are allowed. The judgment of the High Court under appeal is set aside and as a result, the writ petitions preferred by the Respondents shall stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

July 30, 2014.
State Of M.P. & Anr vs Anshuman Shukla

9. Being aggrieved by the order of the High Court, the appellants filed a special leave petition before this Court against the dismissal of revision. The Division Bench of this court vide order dated 12.05.2008 was of the opinion that the case of Nagar Palika Parishad, Morena (supra) had been incorrectly dismissed at the threshold and that the same requires consideration by a larger Bench and further directed that the records of the case be placed before the Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India for constituting an appropriate Bench. Thus, the matter came before us for consideration.

Answer to Point No.2

40. For the reasons stated supra, we answer the points framed by us in the affirmative in favour of the appellants. The impugned judgments and orders are set aside and both the appeals are allowed. The delay in filing revision petitions is condoned and the cases are remanded to the High Court to examine the same on merits. We request the High Court to dispose of the cases as expeditiously as possible.
Nawal Kishore Sharma vs Union Of India & Ors

3. It is the case of the appellant that he was found medically fit in the medical test conducted by the Marine Medical Services in February, 2009 and thereafter, on 29.9.2009, an agreement known as the articles of agreement for employment of seafarers was executed for appellant’s off- shore duty. On 18.6.2010, when the appellant reported sickness i.e. cough, abdominal pain, swelling in leg and difficulty in breathing, he was sent for medical treatment ashore at Adani, Mundra Port. The Medical Officer ashore advised him for admission in the Hospital and accordingly he was signed off for further medical treatment. Thereafter, he was considered permanently unfit for sea service due to dilated cardiomyopathy (heart muscle disease) as per certificate dated 18.3.2011 issued by Corporation’s Assistant Medical Officer. Consequently, the Shipping Department of the Government of India, Mumbai issued order dated 12.4.2011 cancelling registration of the appellant as a Seaman.

appellant was offered an amount of Rs.2.75 lakhs, but he refused to accept the same and challenged the order granting severance compensation by filing the writ petition. The impugned order, therefore, cannot be sustained in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case.

23. In the aforesaid, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order passed by the High Court is set aside and the matter is remitted to the High Court for deciding the writ petition on merits.