L-NLProc/TathyaNyaya-and-FactLegalLlama-NyayaScrape-Datasets huggingface dataset:
Punjab National Bank & Ors vs Ram Kishan

2. The facts which need narration for determination of the lis involved in this appeal are recapitulated as under:

3. The respondent herein joined the appellant-Bank as Peon on 13.8.1986. In the year 2000, the appellant-Bank introduced Voluntary Retirement Scheme known as Punjab National Bank Employees Voluntary Retirement Scheme 2000 (hereinafter referred to as “VRS, 2000”). This scheme was widely circulated, period whereof was 1.11.2000 to 30.11.2000 during which period those employees who wanted to seek voluntary retirement under the said scheme were permitted to apply. It was made applicable to those permanent full time employees of the Bank who had completed 15 years qualifying service or 40 years of age which means those employees fulfilling either of the aforesaid conditions were eligible to apply under the VRS, 2000.

7. As the representation of the respondent to grant him pensionary benefits was rejected by the appellant-Bank, aggrieved by the order of rejection, the appellant filed civil suit in the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gurdaspur, Punjab for declaration that he was entitled to pension with consequential relief and for mandatory injunction to direct the appellant-Bank to release all the benefits along with interest at the rate of 18% from the date it had become due to him. This Suit was, however, dismissed by the Civil Court vide judgment and decree dated 29.8.2003 holding that pension could be granted only on completion of 15 years of service which period of service the respondent had not completed. He was, therefore, held entitled to other benefits like ex-gratia, gratuity and leave encashment but not the pension. The respondents filed Regular First Appeal against the aforesaid judgment under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) read with Order 41 CPC. This Civil Appeal also met with the same fate as it was dismissed affirming the judgment of the Trial Court. Still aggrieved, the respondent took the matter to the High Court of Punjab and Haryana by filing Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the CPC. By impugned judgment dated 13.3.2012, the High Court has allowed the Second Appeal. In this judgment, there is no detailed discussion touching upon the provisions contained in VRS, 2000 or the Pension Regulations. A bare reading of the judgment reveals that the Court has followed its earlier Division Bench judgment rendered in the case of Dharam Pal Singh vs. Punjab National Bank (2008) 149 PLR 745. Against this impugned judgment, Bank filed instant Special Leave Petition under Art. 136 of the Constitution of India wherein leave has been granted.

We are, therefore, of the view that not having completed the required length of qualifying service as provided under Regulation 28 of the 1995 Regulations, the respondent was not eligible for pension under the Pension Regulations, 1995, of the appellant Bank.”

10. Accordingly, we allow this appeal and set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court. No costs.
Sita Ram vs Balbir @ Bali & Anr

3. On the contrary, the Addl. Sessions Judge, Rohtak, by Order dated 22.3.2012 had dismissed the Bail Application filed by Balbir/Respondent no.1. He had noted that the alleged sequence of events inter alia were that when a donation had been demanded from the Appellant he had agreed to match the amount given by his neighbour in the Anaj Mandi, where this entire incident occurred. The persons demanding the donation, however, stated that Respondent no.1 had instructed them to collect Rs.50,000/- from the Informant/Appellant and on being so told, the latter had stated that Respondent no.1 owed him Rs.5,00,000/- out of which they could deduct Rs.2,50,000/- as his donation provided the remaining Rs.2,50,000/- was returned to him. On this conversation being reported back to Respondent no.1, he arrived at approximately 5.00 p.m. at the Anaj Mandi and accosted the Appellant/Informant by verbal abuses as well as by fist blows. Appellant ran away from the spot and immediately lodged a police report. Nevertheless, at 7:00 p.m., Respondent no.1 along with 30-35 supporters armed with weapons again came to the shop of the Appellant and administered lathi blows and also opened fire, leading to injuries to several persons and a fatal injury to Vishnu.

6. Keeping all these factors in perspective, especially the wide-scale injuries suffered by several persons, there is a strong prima facie case of the involvement of the Respondent no.1 in the alleged crimes. Moreover, the antecedents of Respondent no.1 are such that a reasonably strong apprehension of his tampering with witnesses or leveling of threats is imminent and omnipresent. The severity of the attack should not be overlooked. For these manifold reasons, we set aside the impugned Order dated 11.2.2013, allow the Appeal and cancel the bail granted to Respondent no.1 who shall surrender to custody forthwith.

7. Nothing stated above should however influence the Sessions Judge and the trial of the case shall be conducted on its own merits.
M/S. Shree Mahavir Carbon Ltd vs Om Prakash Jalan (Financer) & Anr

3. The impugned order is two page order. After taking note of facts in one paragraph, the High Court has allowed the application and quashed the order taking cognizance of the offence and the discussion leading to this judgment is contained in the following paragraph:

that what is stated is the conclusion and no reasons are given by the High Court for holding that dispute between the parties is civil in nature. The complainant in its complaint had made various specific allegations of cheating, siphoning of funds and falsification of accounts etc. In the complaint filed by the appellant, the appellant averred that it is engaged in the business of manufacturing and sale of low ash phos metallurgical coke. The appellant entered into a tripartite agreement dated 08.04.2003 with Om Prakash Jalan respondent No.1 herein and Mr. Rajeev Maheshwari-Respondent No.3 herein. In this agreement Respondent Nos.1 and 3 agreed to provide sufficient funds for expansion of the coke oven plant owned by the appellant and in consideration thereof the respondents were to be allotted 70% of the existing shares of the appellant company while 30% of its shares were to be retained by the existing shareholders. It was also agreed that the Board of Directors of the appellant Company would be reconstituted with three directors consisting of one nominee of the appellant company, and one nominee each from the respondent companies. Respondent No.1 was to become the Managing Director of the Company. It was further agreed between the parties that while the respondent would bring in the additional working capital for operation and expansion of the plant but one of the -

6. It was further agreed that the profit and loss as earned for the new expansion would be shared in the same ratio till 31st March 2004 and thereafter on the total plant would also be shared in the same ratio. Pursuant to the said agreement the control and management of the appellant company and its Coke Oven Plant was virtually taken over by the respondents while they remained responsible to both the Company and its existing shareholders who have been running the business since the inception of the company till the execution of the tripartite agreement.

17. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside with direction as aforesaid. No costs.
U.T. Chandigarh & Ors vs Gurcharan Singh & Anr

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

4. Being aggrieved by the re-fixation of his pay, the respondent had made several representations but as no change was effected by the appellant- employer in the pay so re-fixed, the respondent had approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘ the Tribunal’) by filing Original Application No.975/CH/2000. The said OA had been dismissed by the Tribunal by an order dated 4th January, 2002. Being aggrieved by the order rejecting the aforestated O.A., the respondent-employee had approached the High Court by filing the aforestated petition which has been allowed by an order dated 20th March, 2008 and being aggrieved by the said order and judgment, this appeal has been filed by the employer.

7. As the respondent had been given appointment on 15th April, 1990 as a Clerk on a post reserved for the ex-servicemen, the provisions of the Orders were to be looked into for the purpose of pay fixation of the respondent. The learned counsel had further submitted that while fixing the pay on 2nd September, 1992, the appellant did not look into the certain provisions of the Orders and an option exercised by the respondent in relation to his pay fixation and therefore, incorrect pay had been fixed under the order dated 2nd September, 1992. By virtue of the said pay fixation, the respondent was given benefit of his past services rendered to the Indian Army and accordingly, he was also given increments which he would have got in the Indian Army. As a result thereof, the respondent’s pay was fixed in a higher scale then what he ought to have been allowed. As a matter of fact, as per the provisions of Order 4 of the Orders, the respondent could not have been given benefit of his earlier services in the process of fixing his pay. Order 4 of the Orders, being relevant for the purpose, has been reproduced herein-below:

(ii) In the case of service officers belonging to the Defence Forces and Civilian Pensioners who hold Group ‘A’ posts at the time of their retirement, the first Rs.500/- of the pension and pension equivalent of retirement benefits shall be ignored.”

11. In view of the aforestated position, in our opinion, the Tribunal was absolutely right in coming to the conclusion that the pay fixation under the order dated 13th October, 1998 was correct because a mistake was committed in the earlier pay fixation under the order dated 2nd September, 1992.

13. For the aforestated reasons, we are of the view that the High Court was not correct in allowing the writ petition. We quash and set aside the order passed by the High Court so as to restore the order passed by the Tribunal and give effect to the pay fixation order dated 13th October, 1998. The appeal stands disposed of as allowed with no order as to costs.

……..…………......................J. (ANIL R. DAVE) …….........................................J (DIPAK MISRA) New Delhi November 01 , 2013.
National Agr.Co-Op. M.F.O.I. ... vs M/S. Earthtech Enterprises Ltd

3. The proceeding before the learned Single Judge was an objection by the respondent herein to the interim award rendered by the Arbitrator. The Arbitrator had rendered an interim award on 24.1.2011 directing the respondent herein to pay Rs.90 crores to the appellant herein. That was on the basis of an earlier order of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court dated 1st July, 2009 read with order dated 22nd May, 2009. The earlier order of the Division Bench had recorded that the respondent's liability to the extent of Rs.90 crores was totally undeniable. The respondent had not challenged that order. That being so, no fault could be found with the interim award of the Arbitrator directing the respondent to pay Rs.90 crores to the appellant. Learned Single Judge was, therefore, right in rejecting the objection to the award. The Division Bench had no reason to interfere therewith.

4. In the circumstances, for the reasons mentioned above, the impugned order passed by the Division Bench is set aside, the order of the learned Single Judge is restored and the appeal is allowed accordingly. In the facts and circumstances of this case, there shall be no order as to costs.

November 11, 2013.
Philomena Dhanin vs State Of Rajasthan & Ors

2. The appellant herein has grievance against respondent No.3 who is the Sarpanch of Village Dhanin, District Rajsamand in the State of Rajasthan. It is the case of the appellant that her restaurant was demolished by respondent No.3 and her husband the second respondent herein. Therefore, she initiated necessary proceedings before the Magistrate's Court. Respondent Nos.2 & 3 filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Rajasthan High Court being Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.758 of 2007, for quashing the proceedings initiated before the Magistrate's Court, contending that as far as respondent No.3 is concerned, the demolition was in discharge of the official duties of respondent No.3 as a public servant and prior sanction of the State Government was to be obtained and therefore she could not be prosecuted. The High Court quashed the proceedings as against respondent No.3. The High Court, however, held that the matter will proceed against respondent No.2, husband of respondent No.3.

November 11, 2013.
Anjanappa vs State Of Karnataka

3. The prosecution examined eight witnesses. Apart from the police witnesses and the doctor, the prosecution examined PW-2 Chikkaeeramma, mother of Gowramma and PW-3 Hanumantharayappa, father of Gowramma.

5. The State of Karnataka carried an appeal to the High Court. The High Court by the impugned order set aside the order of acquittal, convicted the appellant under Section 304 Part-II of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo RI for six years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo further sentence of three months. The said judgment and order is challenged in this appeal.

18. There is also no substance in the submission that there is no motive. The appellant wanted the property standing in the name of the deceased to be transferred to his name, which the deceased was not prepared to do. There is no reason to disbelieve PW-5 HC Ramachari on this aspect.

23. In the ultimate analysis, therefore, we are of the view that the High Court was perfectly justified in interfering with the trial court’s order. The acquittal of the appellant was wrongly recorded. The High Court, however, adopted a kindly approach and convicted the appellant under Section 304 Part-II of the IPC and sentenced him to six years RI because the incident is of the year 1991. Surprisingly, the appellant has made a grievance about this and stated that the appellant’s case does not fall under Section 300 of the IPC and, therefore, it cannot fall under any of its exceptions and that the High Court has not assigned any reasons for convicting the appellant under Section 304 Part-II. This submission deserves to be rejected. Besides, the High Court has given reasons. So, it is wrong to say that no reasons are assigned by the High Court. Since the State has not approached this Court with a grievance that the sentence awarded is too low and should be enhanced, we refrain from commenting on this argument. Judgment of this Court in State of U.P. v. Virendra Prasad[10] is not at all applicable to this case and hence, it is not necessary to discuss it. The High Court was merciful. In the absence of State appeal, at this distance of time, we are inclined to simply dismiss the appeal. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. The appellant is on bail. His bail bonds stand cancelled. He shall surrender before the concerned court.

November 12, 2013.
M/S. Gayatri Project Ltd vs M/S. Sai Krishna Construction

The respondent moved the aforesaid application on the basis that it is a partnership firm, carrying on business of civil works relating to irrigation structures. The Irrigation Department of Government of Andhra Pradesh had given the work to the appellant herein. Thus, the appellant was the main contractor and respondent was the sub-contractor working under the appellant. The works involved earth work excavation and cohesive non-swelling soil filling in KC Canal including CC lining and structures form KMs 156.650 to KMs 170-00 of Package ICB-10’ in Kurnool District of Andhra Pradesh. The appellant identified the respondent as a suitable agency for execution of the work and entrusted the work to the respondent as a sub-contractor. After due negotiations, an agreement dated 29.1.2001 was entered into between the parties. The agreement inter alia provides various terms and conditions including the nature of work to be executed by the respondent, security deposits, penalties leviable, commission to which the appellant would be entitled to, method of payment for the work undertaken, taxes and Government levies. The agreement also contained an arbitration clause which reads as under:-

In view of the above, we find no merit in the appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed.

Before we part with this matter, we would request the learned Arbitrator to conclude the Arbitration Proceedings as expeditiously as possible since the matter was referred long back as this would be in the interest of justice.
Pariwar Co-Operative Hng.Sty.Ltd vs Chandrashekar M.Virkud & Anr

3. The short facts leading to this appeal are this wise. One Mr. Vitthal G. Kapuskar was the Chief Promoter of the appellant Society which has constructed a housing complex at Kanjur Marg (East) in Mumbai. It so transpires that though the aforesaid Mr. Kapuskar, respondent No.2 herein, was the Chief Promoter, subsequently there were certain allegations against him with respect to the management of the funds of the Society and not taking necessary steps with respect to construction. Thereafter, another Managing Committee has taken over which has presently filed this appeal.

4. Respondent No.1 was one of the members of the Society. It was his case that he paid all necessary amounts as a member to get an apartment in the said Society but he was not allotted any apartment. He, therefore, applied for refund of the amount which he had paid to the Society. The amount not having been refunded to him, he moved the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission of the State of Maharashtra under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by filing a complaint being Consumer Complaint No.388 of 2001. An order came to be passed in that proceeding on 17.6.2005 holding the appellant Society responsible for neither giving him possession of any apartment nor returning the amount that was payable to him. Therefore, an order was passed against the appellant Society as well as against respondent No.2.

5. The appellant Society carried the matter in appeal before the National Disputes Redressal Commission pointing out that it was respondent No.2 who was responsible for non-payment of the amount because of the mismanagement on his part of the Society's funds. The National Commission had passed an interim order on 23.2.2006 directing the appellant Society to deposit the entire amount payable to the second respondent, in the State Commission out of which 50% amount was allowed to be withdrawn by respondent No.1 on furnishing personal bonds. Accordingly, respondent No.1 has withdrawn that amount. The appeal was ultimately heard and disposed of by the National Commission by its order dated 16.5.2008 and under that order, the appellant Society and respondent No.2 were directed to pay to respondent No.1, the amount as awarded by the State Commission along with interest at 9% per annum.

10. We are informed that there are many other proceedings which are pending between the appellant Society and respondent No.2, and many cases are filed by the depositors against respondent No.2. We, therefore, make it clear that this order will be confined to the facts of this case.

11. Appeal is disposed of as above. No order as to costs.

..........................J (H.L. GOKHALE) .........................J (KURIAN JOSEPH) New Delhi;

November 12, 2013.
State Of Haryana vs Rajinder

3. The short facts leading to this appeal are this wise. The respondent herein along with some others were alleged to have murdered one Lachhman on 26.11.2002. There were in all 10 accused. They were tried for the offences under Sections 302, 452, 342, 148 & 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25 of the Arms Act. The learned Sessions Judge by his judgment and order dated 23/27.7.2004 convicted all of them in Sessions Case No.13 of 2003 and sentenced them to life imprisonment along with other punishments. The respondent herein filed Criminal Appeal No.715-DB of 2004 before the High Court which came to be allowed by the Division Bench of the High Court acquitting him. Hence, this appeal by the State.

.........................J (H.L. GOKHALE) ...........................J (KURIAN JOSEPH) New Delhi;

November 12, 2013.
Tribhuvanshankar vs Amrutlal

3. The appellant-plaintiff instituted Civil Suit No. 259A/86 in the Court of Civil Judge Class-II, Mhow, District Indore, for eviction of the respondent-defendant from the suit-premises and for mesne profits. The case of the appellant-plaintiff was that he had purchased the suit property vide registered sale deed dated 1.4.1976 on payment of sale consideration of Rs.4500/- to the vendor, one Kishanlal. The respondent-defendant was in possession of the said suit property as a tenant under the earlier owner Kishorilal on payment of rent of Rs.15/- per month. It was averred in the plaint that it was an oral tenancy and after acquiring the title the appellant informed the respondent about the sale by the earlier owner. Despite assurance given by the respondent to pay the rent to him, it was not honoured which compelled the appellant to send a notice on 14.12.1977 and, eventually, he terminated the tenancy with effect from 31.1.1978. The respondent, as pleaded, had replied to the notice stating, inter alia, that the appellant was neither the landlord nor the owner of the property. On the contrary, it was stated in the reply that the respondent was the owner of the premises.

7. The learned trial Judge, on the basis of evidence brought on record, came to hold that the sale deed executed by Kishorilal in favour of the appellant was without any sale consideration; that the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties had not been established; and that the respondent had become the owner of the suit accommodation on the basis of adverse possession. Being of this view, the trial court dismissed the suit.

36. Resultantly, the appeal is allowed leaving the parties to bear their respective costs.
Arjun Jadav vs State Of West Bengal & Ors

2. The petitioner who was made an accused in a murder case no.S.T 3(9) for offence u/s 302/34 IPC, was arrested on 5.03.1985. According to the petitioner, he has undergone conviction in custody of the respondent, which should be counted towards sentence are as follows:

3. After trial, the petitioner was convicted u/s 302/34 IPC vide judgment dated 15.01.1991 along with another co-accused Partap Praharaj, who according to the petitioner, fired one gun shot on the abdomen of the deceased and was sentenced to “imprisonment for life simplicitor” (not rigorous imprisonment for life) by the Court of IXth Additional Session Judge, Alipore, Calcutta.

-----------------------