L-NLProc/TathyaNyaya-and-FactLegalLlama-NyayaScrape-Datasets huggingface dataset:
Prem Narain And Anr vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

The first informant-Ganeshi Bai is the wife of the deceased Gopal Singh. As per the First Information Report, the incident occurred at about 11 a.m. on 6.7.1985. From a perusal of the First Information Report, it appears that allegations were made that at 9 a.m. Prem Narain and Parmeshwar came to her house and asked her husband as to where he had been in the previous night. According to the deceased he was in Barelly. Parmeshwar asked her husband to come to Bareli to which he replied that he could come a little later. At about 11 a.m. her husband left for Barelly and in the lane (Gali) Ram Charan, Prem Narain, Jagdish and Parmeshwar intercepted him and then started assaulting her husband. He raised alarm and upon hearing the same the first informant came running there and saw the deceased lying in the lane and all the four accused persons assaulting him. The dead body was found in the field of Shankar.

The first informant-Ganeshi Bai in her evidence before the Court gave a completely different picture than disclosed in the First Information Report. The time and place of incident was also changed. According to her before the Court, at about 10 a.m. Peeta. (not Prem Narain and Parmeshwar) came to her house and called her husband saying that they want to go to Brailey. Conversations which purported to have taken place with regard to whereabouts of the deceased in the previous night had not been disclosed. Whereas according to the First Information Report, the deceased started for going to Barelly after taking his breakfast, he was accosted in the lane by the persons named as accused in the First Information Report; in her statement before the Court she stated Peeta Ram asked her husband to come immediately whereupon Chunni Lal caught hold hand of her husband and dragged him to his house and bolted the outer door. The scene of occurrence thus has changed from lane to the house of Chunni Lal.

In her First Information Report, as noticed hereinbefore, she came out of the lane and found the accused persons assaulting the deceased. In her statement before the Court she stated that she had tried to open the door and having not been able to do so, she purported to see the incident from Bada. In her statement before the Court she disclosed that the incident took place inside the house of Chunni Lal where all the six accused persons were present and they had been assaulting her husband but it was for the first time in her evidence she stated that her son was on her lap and despite the same she was assaulted on her stomach but no injury was found.

We fail to see any reason whatsoever as to why the statement of P.W.-3 was no recorded on the date of occurrence and in any event within a reasonable time. If Kallu-P.W.-3 is to be believed he was in constant touch with the investigating officer. If that be so, it betrays all reasons as to why he was examined after only six weeks.

We for the reasons stated aforementioned feel that benefit of doubt should be given to the appellants. The appeal is allowed accordingly. The appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds shall stand discharged.
Devender Singh vs State Of Haryana

The appellant before us is the husband of the deceased Sumitra. They were married on 7.2.1984. A child was born to them in 1985. The incident occurred on 11.3.1987 at about 11.00 a.m. Indisputably, the two-year old child of the appellant was also injured in that incident. It has also not been disputed that the father of the appellant received burn injuries when he tried to save the lady and the child. Whereas the deceased Sumitra died on the spot, her son and father-in-law died subsequently.

Three witnesses, namely, both the parents and the brother of the deceased were examined to prove the purported demand of dowry and harassment allegedly meted out to the deceased by the appellant. The entire prosecution case is based on some letters which were said to have been written by the deceased and her husband in the years 1984-85. The learned Trial Judge as also the High Court based their entire judgments of conviction and sentence on the basis of said letters and the conduct of the appellant and other family members.

For the reasons aforementioned, we are of the opinion that it is a fit case where the appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt. Accordingly, the impugned judgment passed by the High Court and the judgment and order of the Trial Court are set aside and the appeal is allowed. The appellant is on bail, the his bail bonds shall stand discharged.
K.N. Sathyapalan (Dead) By Lrs vs State Of Kerala & Anr

The appellant entered into an agreement with the State of Kerala on 10th October, 1985 whereunder he was entrusted with the construction work of the Chavara Distributory from Ch.7440M to 9440M and 10475M to 14767M. Disputes having arisen between the parties, the matter was referred to arbitration. The Superintending Engineer, Siruvani Project, Palghat, .the designated Arbitrator in terms of the contract, was appointed as the sole Arbitrator. By his award, which was published on 2nd September, 1989, the Arbitrator awarded a total sum of Rs. 42,21,000/- with 12% interest per annum from the date of the award. Upon the passing of the award the appellant herein filed O.P. (Arb.) 40/89 in the court below under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act for passing a decree in terms of the award. The State of Kerala filed a petition under Section 30 of the Act challenging the award and for setting aside the same.

The application filed by the State was dismissed and aggrieved thereby the State of Kerala preferred an appeal in the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam, being MFA No. 980 of 1990 C. The appellant herein raised claims under 12 different heads but the Arbitrator allowed only claims (a), (e), (g), (i) and

The question which we are called upon to answer in the instant appeal is whether in the absence of any price escalation clause in the Original Agreement and a specific prohibition to the contrary in the Supplemental Agreement, the appellant could have made any claim on account of escalation of costs and whether the Arbitrator exceeded his jurisdiction in allowing such claims as had been found by the High Court.

In the aforesaid circumstances, the Arbitrator appears to have acted within his jurisdiction in allowing some of the claims on account of escalation of costs which was referable to the execution of the work during the extended period. In our judgment, the view taken by the High Court was on a rigid interpretation of the terms of contract and the Supplemental Agreement executed between the parties, which was not warranted by the turn of events.

We accordingly allow the appeal and set aside the order passed by the High Court and restore the award made by the Arbitrator.

There will, however, be no order as to costs.
State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Kedar Yadav

Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

Considering the principles indicated above, the inevitable conclusion is that the High Court was not justified in reducing the sentence to the period already undergone. Taking into account all relevant aspects including long passage of time which per se is not a ground for reduction in sentence, order of the High Court, so far as it relates to the reduction of period of sentence, is set aside. The respondent shall undergo custodial sentence for three years subject to such remissions as may be available in law. Additionally, he shall pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-. Deposit of the amount shall be made within three months from today. If the amount is not deposited the default sentence will be one year rigorous imprisonment. In case the amount is deposited, a sum of Rs.8,000/- shall be paid to the victim-Parvat Singh.

Appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.
Utha Moidu Haji vs Kuningarath Kunhabdulla And Ors

schedule properties for the last 3 years at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per annum from the first defendant or other defendants.

The learned Trial Judge opined that Article 60 of the Schedule appended to the Limitation Act, 1963 being applicable, the suit was barred by limitation. The plaintiff filed an appeal thereagainst. The appellate Court was of the opinion that the plaintiff could have instituted the suit within a period of 12 years from the date of execution of the sale deed i.e. till the year 1986, thus, and the suit was not barred by limitation. The appellant herein carried the matter in second appeal before the High Court. By reason of the impugned judgment, a learned Single Judge of the Kerala High Court although opined that in terms of Sections 6 & 8 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the suit was required to be filed by the plaintiff- respondent within 3 years from the date of his attaining majority or 12 years from the date of execution of the sale deed, but dismissed the second appeal of the appellant herein inter alia on the premise that he as also his predecessor in interest having become co-owner in the suit property with the plaintiff-respondent, the provisions of Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963 would be applicable. Having held so, it was further opined that as the defendant No.1 - appellant had failed to plead and prove `ouster' as against the plaintiff, the suit was bound to fail.

In the facts and circumstance of this case, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the judgment of the High Court as also the first Appellate Court are set aside and that of the learned Trial Judge is restored. The appeal is allowed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no orders as to costs.
Antar Singh vs State Of M.P. Madhya Pradesh

The occurrence took place on 6th July, 1993 at about 4 p.m. The deceased was a lady named Keshrabai. She and her daughter-Annuabai (P.W.1) aged about 15 years at the relevant time were in their house. The appellant herein and three others entered in to their house armed with axe, phaliya, lathies bow & arrows etc. Eight other persons had surrounded the entire house. They were also armed with deadly weapons. Allegedly, Badri assaulted the deceased. Indisputably, the deceased suffered as many as eight injuries as would appear from the deposition made by Doctor R.C. Hanotiya - P.W. 11 who had conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased-Kesharbai on 8.7.1993. He found the following injuries on the persons of the dead body:

The appellant herein as also the said Badri preferred and appeal before the High Court. The said appeal was dismissed by reason of the impugned judgment. The special leave petition filed by Badri was dismissed on 16.12.1999. The appellant alone is thus before us.

In a situation oft his nature, we are of the opinion that common intention on the part of all accused persons who had entered into the house can be safely inferred. The manner in which the occurrence had taken place itself would show that the accused had intention to kill the deceased. There was no provocation. There was no sudden quarrel. The deceased was a old lady and her daughter Annubai - P.W. 1 was 15 year old girl. P.W.1 could not have resisted the appellant nor cold the deceased herself offer any resistance to the murderer. Within a short time, it will bear repetition to state, eight injuries were inflicted on her person in quick succession. All the accused persons committed the said offence by going into her house. It was, therefore, not a case where this Court can differ with the opinion of the learned trial Court and that of the High Court that the appellant had no common intention to kill the deceased along with Badri and other.

For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merit in this appeal. The appeal is dismissed accordingly. I the appellant is on bail the bail bond shall stand cancelled and he shall surrender forthwith.
Raj Kumar Soni & Anr vs State Of U.P. & Anr

On 31-3-1993 the Sub-Divisional Officer, Kotdwar accorded approval to allot the land in question admeasuring Ac.0-053 hectare in Khasra No.1003 situated at village Jhonk, District Pauri Garhwal (Uttaranchal) to one Mahanth Govind Das. On the same day, the Sub-Divisional Officer executed a lease deed in favour of the allottee for a period of thirty years from the date of execution of the lease deed. The said Mahanth Govind Das is stated to have applied for and obtained a sanctioned plan for raising certain constructions from the Development Authority, Haridwar. The appellants herein purchased the constructions raised/Malwa under the registered sale deed dated 26-4- 1995 from the said Mahanth Govind Das. The appellants claim to have purchased the land also, as is evident from their pleadings and contentions raised in the writ petition. Be it noted, the land admittedly belongs to Government. The appellants, by their application dated 15-5-1995 requested the Collector to grant mutation in their favour, in which it is stated that they have purchased the debris and not the land from Mahanth Govind Das. The Deputy Collector, having considered the application so submitted by the appellants found "the holder of grant Mahant Govind Das sold the debris of residential building and the shops along with the possession through the registered sale deed in favour of the applicants on 2-5-1995. In case the debris is removed due to violation of the grant, then there is possibility of starting of unnecessary litigation and if Pakka houses are removed, then many legal hurdles might arise, which are not benefit the State government. Therefore it is not appear proper to dispossess them from the land. (sic)"

In our view, on the admitted and indisputable facts set out above, any interference with the impugned order of the District Collector would result in restoration of orders passed earlier in favour of the appellants which are otherwise not in accordance with law.

For all these reasons, we do not find any merit in the appeals. The appeals are accordingly dismissed. We make no order as to costs.
Star India Pvt. Ltd vs Sea T.V. Network Ltd. & Another

To sum up, Moon Network Pvt. Ltd. was appointed as an exclusive agent of Star India Pvt. Ltd. in the territory of Agra. At the same time the Agreement recognized the status of Moon Network Pvt. Ltd. as an MSO engaged in the business of transmission of TV channels through ground cables. This aspect is important since in the present controversy one of the main issue which arises for determination is the difference between, transmission including re-transmission of signals, on one hand and the expression providing TV channels on the other hand which expression finds place under the Telecommunication (Broadcasting and Cable Services) Interconnection Regulation, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as Interconnection Regulation).

Safeguards for Broadcasters

17. In case any distributor of TV channel feels he/she has been discriminated on terms of getting TV signals compared to a similarly based distributor of TV channel, then a complaint must be filed with the broadcaster or multi system operator, as the case may be. In case the complainant is not satisfied with the response, he/she may approach the appropriate forum for relief. We do not find any merit in the civil appeal for the following reasons :
M/S Binani Industries Ltd., Kerala vs Assistant Commissioner Of Commercial ...

Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

sections (1) and (2) shall be exercisable only within a period of four years from the date on which the order was passed.

2. Salient features of the amendments are explained hereunder for guidance and compliance. (Specific mention is made about the amendments which are introduced with retrospective effect and in all other cases, the amendments take prospective effect, i.e., w.e.f. 1.4.1996):

In view of the above, the following revised instructions are issued:

C.

section should apply to the facts that we have in this case".

That being so, the question of re-opening the assessment by mere change of opinion is entirely impermissible.

Though these aspects need not be taken note of in view of the conclusion that the proviso was clarificatory in nature and operated with effect from the date Section 5-C was amended i.e. 1.4.1986 yet this is an additional factor to set aside the High Court's judgment.
Ram Charittar & Another Etc vs State Of Uttar Pradesh Etc

The trial court acquitted all the accused by its judgment dated 12.5.1981 but in appeal the High Court convicted the appellants Ram Charittar and Kishori Lal under Section 302/34 IPC, and sentenced them to life imprisonment, but gave the benefit of doubt to the other co-accused Ram Kumar and Chandrawati and thus affirmed their acquittal.

The prosecution case is that in between the eventful night at about 3 o'clock, cries and shrieks emanating from the house of Sushila attracted her neighbours Bhagwati PW-2, Ram Din PW-3, Mangroo PW-4, Prem Narain PW-5 and several others to the scene. They saw the accused Ram Charittar, Kishori Lal, Ram Kumar and Chandrawati coming out of the house of the deceased which was near their own houses. Ram Charittar had in his hand a bottle of acid. Seeing the witnesses, Ram Charittar dropped the bottle of acid in the verandah of the deceased. The bottle was broken and the acid splashed on the floor. The witnesses succeeded in apprehending the accused Ram Charittar, Kishori Lal and Chandrawati at the spot, but Ram Kumar made good his escape. Ram Charittar applied some acid to his face and some acid fell on the face of his wife accused Chandrawati. In the meantime, Sushila came out with her younger daughter Nandini rolling on the floor and both of them died near her door. Bindu elder daughter of Sushila was also badly burnt with acid. While crying she said that 'Badka Dada' had thrown acid on them. Being badly burnt with acid she was taken to the District Hospital, where she died.

The evidence of these four witnesses is consistent. Thus there is strong circumstantial evidence against the appellants. We see no reason to disbelieve these evidences and hence we agree with the view taken by the High Court. The medical evidence corroborates the evidence of these witnesses and there is also the dying declaration of Bindu the elder daughter of Sushila.

In the present case, there was strong motive for the accused to liquidate the deceased to grab the property. On killing them the accused became the immediate beneficiary to the estate left by the husband of deceased Sushila. No enmity with the accused could be proved by the evidence against the witnesses, and hence we agree with the High Court that some minor contradictions will not shake their testimony. Thus we dismiss the appeal of Ram Charittar and Kishori Lal.

As regards the State's appeal against the acquittal of Ram Kumar and Chandrawati, the High Court has given these accused the benefit of doubt. We see no reason to disagree with the view taken by the High Court.

Thus, there is no force in both these appeals and both are dismissed.
Madhya Pradesh Administration vs Tribhuban

State of Madhya Pradesh runs an establishment in Delhi known as Madhya Pradesh Bhawan. Respondent was appointed on temporary basis from time to time with breaks in services. He worked for the period 13.12.1991 to 1.3.1994. After his services were terminated, an industrial dispute was raised. The said dispute was referred for its determination before the Industrial Tribunal. The Industrial Tribunal by an Award dated 26.7.2002, while holding that in terminating the services of the respondents the appellant has failed to comply with the statutory requirements contained in Section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act, awarded only retrenchment compensation alongwith notice pay together with interest @ 9% per annum. Validity of the said Award was not questioned by the appellant. Respondent, however, filed a Writ Petition thereagainst. By a Judgment and Order dated 24.2.2005 and 15.4.2005, a learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court allowed the said Writ Petition directing re-instatement of the respondent with full back wages. An intra-court appeal preferred thereagainst has been dismissed by a Division Bench of the said Court by reason of the impugned judgment.

We, therefore, are of the opinion that keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case and particularly in view of the fact that the High Court had directed re-instatement with full back wages, we are of the opinion that interest of justice would be subserved if appellant herein be directed to pay a sum of Rs. 75,000/- by way of compensation to the respondent. This appeal is allowed to the aforementioned extent.

However, in the facts and circumstances of this case, there shall be no order as to costs.
Inspector Prem Chand vs Govt. Of N.C.T. Of Delhi And Others

The appellant was at all material times and still is working with the Delhi Police. He was posted in Anti-Corruption Branch in 1997. While posted in the said Branch, he was detailed as a Raid Officer. Allegedly, the complainant Kamlesh Kumar Gupta s/o Prabhu Dayal Gupta, resident of Lajwanti Garden, Delhi, lodged a complaint with the Anti-Corruption Branch of Delhi Police that Preet Pal Bansal, Inspector (Malaria), MCD, was demanding a sum Rs.3,000/- by way of illegal gratification from him for not challaning the godown of the complainant (PW-2). The complainant wanted a raid to be conducted in the said Preet Pal Bansal. Appellant constituted a raiding party consisting of the complainant Kamlesh Kumar Gupta (PW-2) and Devender (PW-4) and other police officers including himself. In the preparation of the said operation, the complainant produced a sum of Rs.3000/- in denomination of Rs.500/- each whereupon Phenolphthalein powder was applied and the tainted money was handed over to the complainant. When the complainant attempted to pay the said amount to Shri Preet Pal Singh at his godown, he did not accept the same. The tainted money was, therefore, not seized. It was allegedly given out by him that the complainant may give the same to one Devender (PW-4) and he in turn would accept the money from him. Whereafter, PW-4 sat on the pillion of the scooter and they reached at the Petrol Pump situate at the Mall Road, Delhi. He was arrested.

He was held guilty of the said charges. A second show-cause notice was issued to the appellant to which cause was shown by him. By an order dated 28.3.2005, a punishment of forfeiture of one year's approved service was imposed upon the appellant. He preferred an appeal thereagainst. The appellate authority, being the Commissioner of Police, while dismissing the appeal of the appellant held:

The original application filed by the appellant before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi, questioning the validity or legality of the said order of punishment as also the appellate order was dismissed by the Tribunal by its judgment dated 15.2.2005. A writ petition preferred thereagainst by the appellant has been dismissed by a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court opining:

We, therefore, are of the opinion that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, the appellant cannot be said to have committed any misconduct.

Impugned judgment, therefore, in our opinion cannot be sustained, It is set aside accordingly. The appeal is allowed. No costs.