L-NLProc/TathyaNyaya-and-FactLegalLlama-NyayaScrape-Datasets huggingface dataset:
Sureshchandra Ramanlal Mehta vs State Of Gujarat & Anr

3. The record shows that in the year 2002 an FIR was lodged against the appellant and 13 other co- accused for alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 406, 409, 420, 439, 471, 473(a), 120B of IPC and Section 46 of the Banking Regulation Act. The appellant had approached the High Court for anticipatory bail but the same was disposed of as withdrawn by an order dated January 22, 2004. The appellant again preferred another application for obtaining anticipatory bail. The High Court rejected the same on the ground that though the previous application 3 for anticipatory bail was disposed of on January 22, 2004, the appellant had neither surrendered before the Investigating Officer nor extended cooperation in the investigation, as a result of which the investigating agency had initiated proceedings against the appellant under Section 70 and 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. According to the High Court the appellant had no regard for law and, therefore, his prayer for anticipatory bail was liable to be rejected though he had pleaded his illness. In that view of the matter, the High Court has rejected the application for anticipatory bail giving rise to the instant appeal.

The appellant is enlarged on anticipatory bail with reference to Crime Case No. 1681 of 2002 registered with Navrangpura Police Station at Ahmedabad for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 406, 409, 420, 439, 471, 473(a), 120B of IPC and Section 46 of the Banking Regulation Act on his depositing a sum of Rs.40 lacs with the 7 respondent No. 2, i.e., Sabarmati Cooperative Bank (in liquidation). It would be open to the appellant to deposit the abovementioned amount in four equal monthly instalments first of which would be deposited by May 23, 2008. The appellant shall make himself available for interrogation by police officer as and when required. The appellant shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer. The appellant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the High Court.

8. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal succeeds.

9. If the appellant is arrested without warrant by an officer in charge of Navrangpura Police Station and is prepared to give bail he shall be released on bail in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with like surety for the same amount. It would, thereafter, be open to the appellant to apply for regular bail under Section 8 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the court hearing such an application shall decide the same on merits without being influenced by the fact that this Court has granted anticipatory bail to the appellant.

10. The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove.

May 15, 2008.
Panneerselvam vs State Of Tamil Nadu

2. A1 was Head Constable, while A2 was a Constable A3 was a Writer, and A4 was a Pere Constable. All of them were attached to Ammapet Police Station, and they were on duty on 14.12.1992 and 15.12.1992. A5 was a native of Udaiyur Kovil

3. After the case was committed to the Court of Sessions charges were framed since the accused persons pleaded innocence they were put to trial. In order to substantiate the charges 14 witnesses were examined. On consideration of the material on record the Trial Court recorded the conviction and imposed sentences as aforesaid.

4. Stand of the appellant before the High Court was that the deceased had put himself on fire and in fact, all the accused persons immediately quenched the fire and had taken him to the Government Primary Health Hospital, Ammapet, where PW3 doctor was available. The deceased made a voluntary statement to PW3 wherein he categorically stated that he had poured petrol on himself and set himself on fire. Thereafter the deceased with the burn injuries was taken to the Medical College Hospital where also he made a similar statement to PW4 the doctor. Subsequently, another doctor PW6 examined him where also he made a similar statement. Therefore, it was submitted that the Trial Court was not justified in convicting them relying on the purported dying declaration alleged to have been given by the deceased to the Revenue Divisional Officer (PW14) on 16.12.1992 i.e. four days prior to his death. The same was nothing but a tutored one. The High Court held that the so called statements made before the doctors cannot be accepted in view of the dying declaration recorded by PW14 the RDO. The High Court did not attach any importance to the statements purportedly given before PWs, 3, 4 and 6 and also relied on the dying declaration purportedly made by the deceased before the PW14. The High Court found that the allegations against A2, A3 were not proved beyond reasonable doubt and they were entitled to acquittal. Accordingly, the appeals filed by these accused persons were allowed and those filed by the appellants in these two appeals were dismissed.

7. This is a case where the basis of conviction of the accused is the dying declaration. The situation in which a person is on his deathbed, being exceedingly solemn, serene and grave, is the reason in law to accept the veracity of his statement. It is for this reason that the requirements of oath and cross-examination are dispensed with. Besides should the dying declaration be excluded it will result in miscarriage of justice because the victim being generally the only eye-witness in a serious crime, the exclusion of the statement would leave the Court without a scrap of evidence.
Nikhil Kanchanlal Vakharia vs S.E.B.I. & Anr

3. The impugned order is a one line order which makes a reference to the detailed order passed on 12th May, 2006 in a companion matter being Appeal No.211 of 2004 titled as Kamlesh Ramanlal Shah v. SEBI and Another.

7. According to the appellant, the present case involves a situation where at all material times the stock broking firm was a partnership firm carrying on business in the name and style of M/s. Kanchanlal & Sons. The appellant along with his son, wife and daughter-in-law constituted a partnership firm. Late Shri Kanchanlal K. Vakharia because of his ill health decided to nominate the appellant in his place as a member of Stock Exchange, Mumbai (respondent no.2). The appellant claimed that he is a partner of M/s. Kanchanlal & Sons and, therefore, now the Security Exchange Board of India (for short SEBI) should give the benefit of fee continuity as for the first five years they have already been charged 5 from the partnership on a turnover basis, therefore, they must now charge on a flat rate of Rs.5000/- per annum for the registration. The appellant claims on account of transmission since the business and trade continued in the same name or entity and the stock exchange permits continuation of the same membership under the same number and clearing code. They should also be given the benefit under the same registration of the earlier stock broker and the benefit of fee continuity.

(d) he shall pay the amount of fees for registration in the manner provided in the regulations; and

(e) he shall take adequate steps for redressal of grievances of the investors within one month of the date of the receipt of the complaint and keep the Board informed about the number, nature and other particulars of the complaints received from such investors."

19. In view of the provisions of the Act, Rules and Regulations, we have no difficulty in arriving at the conclusion that the appeal is devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed.

CIVIL APPEAL Nos.2951, 3004, 3008, 3009, 3010, 3015, 3016, 3017, 3058, 3082 of 2006.

20. In view of our decision in Civil Appeal No.4210 of 2006, these appeals also stand disposed of accordingly. 16

21. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we direct the parties in all the appeals to bear their own costs.

May 15, 2008.
Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd vs Sudhakaran K.V.& Ors

2. The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute. Thankamani (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) was travelling as a pillion rider on a scooter on 20.10.1993. She fell down from the scooter and succumbed to the injuries sustained by her. In regard to the said accident, a claim petition was filed.

In view of the terms of the contract of insurance, however, she would not be covered thereby.

21. For the reasons aforementioned, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained. It is set aside accordingly. The appeal is allowed. No costs ...............................J. [S.B. Sinha] ................................J. [Lokeshwar Singh Panta] New Delhi;

May 16, 2008
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board & Anr vs Status Spinning Mills Ltd & Anr

12. The Division Bench of the High Court disposing of the said batch of appeals by a judgment and order dated 19.07.2005 opined that it was not necessary to discuss the individual fact of each of the respondents' case on the premise that the Secretary to the Government could not clarify the amendments to the Schedule which were made by the Governor. The said appeals were disposed of holding:

25. The proviso appended thereto, however, saves the cases of those who had availed themselves of the said tariff concession and they who would continue to get the benefit thereof until expiry of the period of three years from the date on which the consumer is given service connection. The date on which the service connection is given, therefore, plays an important role.

We have, therefore, to consider the issues raised before us independently.

46. Those hard cases, even according to Mr. Ganguly, should be brought within the purview of the proviso.

We, therefore, held:

We direct accordingly. The matters would now be examined by the Appropriate Authority of the Board, as directed by the High Court in individual cases. The appeals are allowed with the aforementioned directions. No costs.
Rajeshwar Thakur & Anr vs Bihar State Electricity Board & Ors

applications should be strictly avoided at all stages. The revised flow chart showing the various stages of processing of the H.T. applications is enclosed.

iv) It is further to be reiterated that those H.T. applications for which supply could not be extended within 18 months may be returned immediately to the applications with a request to renew after a specific date.

New industries set up on or after 15.2.97 are not eligible for any tariff concession. However, in respect of H.T. industries set up in areas other than Chennai Metropolitan area before 15.2.97 shall continue to avail the tariff concession until the expiry of 3 years period reckoned from date of service concession."

25. The proviso appended thereto, however, saves the cases of those who had availed themselves of the said tariff concession and they who would continue to get the benefit thereof until expiry of the period of three years from the date on which the consumer is given service connection. The date on which the service connection is given, therefore, plays an important role. 21

We have, therefore, to consider the issues raised before us independently.

Where a statute had been enacted as the result of the recommendations of the Law Commission it *44 is appropriate to consider those recommendations. He stated that in his opinion:

46. Those hard cases, even according to Mr. Ganguly, should be brought within the purview of the proviso.

We, therefore, hold:

We direct accordingly. The matters would now be examined by the Appropriate Authority of the Board, as directed by the High Court in individual cases. The appeals are allowed with the aforementioned directions. No costs.

May 16, 2008
Venkatesan vs State Of Tamil Nadu

1. Appellant, who was described as A2 in Sessions Case No. 117 of 1990, had filed an appeal to challenge his conviction for offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the `IPC') before the Madras High Court. Judgment dated 3.7.2000 in Criminal Appeal No. 741 of 1990. The appeal was dismissed. Appellant faced trial alongwith one Doraiswamy who has described as A1. It was alleged that both of them were responsible for murder of Rajendran (hereinafter referred to as the `deceased') on 19.4.1988 at about 10 PM. Trial court acquitted A1 while holding appellant guilty of offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. Background facts as projected in a nutshell are as follows:

16. Above being the position, the inevitable conclusion is that the trial court and the High Court were not justified in directing conviction of the appellant. He is acquitted of the charges. The bail bonds executed pursuant to the order granting bail shall stand discharged.

17. The appeal is allowed.
M/S. Cable Corpn. Of India Ltd vs Additional Commissioner Of Labour & Ors

2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

The Specified Authority, after giving an opportunity of being heard to the company, workmen and other interested persons, including workers unions and after conducting an inquiry, by a reasoned order dated 29.4.2003 partly allowed the application preferred by the company by granting permission to retrench 276 workmen out of 509 workmen on conditions mentioned in the order. The correctness of that decision was put in issue by the workers unions, the respondent Nos. 2 and 2 3 herein by filing applications under Section 25-N(6) of the Act for review of the decision or to refer the matter for adjudication. By an order dated 9.7.2003 the applications preferred by the Unions were rejected on the ground that such applications could be preferred only by workmen whereas the same have been made by the Unions. Besides, it was observed that no new point was raised in the review proceedings which warranted fresh examination. Accordingly, both the applications for review/reference came to be rejected.

21. In view of analysis made above, the inevitable result is that the appeal deserves to be allowed which we direct.

................................J. (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT) ...............................J. (P. SATHASIVAM) New Delhi, May 16, 2008 12 13
State Of Karnataka vs Chikkahottappa @ Varade Gowda & Ors

2. Background facts as projected by the prosecution in a nutshell are as follows:

Attempt was made to take the injured person to the hospital at Huliyurdurga in a car. Rajanna died on the way and ultimately, the body was taken to the Police Station and from there to the hospital. The complainant Ningamma (PW1) lodged the complaint at 9.30 p.m. and this complaint which has been treated as the F.I.R, was ultimately sent to the J.M.F.C., Kunigal, which reached him at 7.30 am, the next morning. Accused No.4-Lokesh had also sustained two injuries of considerable seriousness on his left thigh and right leg respectively and he came to be admitted to the hospital at Huliyurdurga on the same evening at about 7.30 p.m. A-4 had lodged a complaint with the police to the effect that deceased Rajanna and two other persons had assaulted him near his house at about 5.30 p.m. on 13.7.1992 and that he had sustained the injuries in the course of that incident. Ultimately, the Police filed a report in respect of this complaint. As far as the complaint lodged by Ningamma is concerned, the Police registered an offence being Crime No. 92/1992 under Section 302 IPC read with Section 149 IPC 4 and after completion of the investigation, put up eight accused for trial. The learned trial Judge found the eight accused persons guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 302 read with 149 IPC and convicted all of them and sentenced them to suffer R.I, for life under the main charge along with a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default, to undergo further R.I. for a period of one year. The accused were also convicted of offence punishable under Section 148 IPC and imposed fine of Rs.500/- in default, to undergo simple Imprisonment for three months.

13. Appeal is allowed.
Union Public Service Commission & Anr vs A.K.Salim & Ors

4. On service of notice, the appellants contested the claim of the respondent No. 1 by filing reply. The Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench, by judgment dated March 9, 2007, directed the State of Kerala and the Principal Secretary Forests, Government of Kerala, to submit the consolidated proposal for considering the selection to Indian Forest Service for the year 2006 to the UPSC within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the said order. The Tribunal further directed that on receipt of such proposal, the UPSC, New Delhi and the Selection Committee for selection to Indian Forest Service shall convene a meeting well before the date of retirement of the respondent No. 1, which was May 31, 2007 in accordance with the Rues.

5. The record indicates that the above mentioned directions were not complied with by the appellants. Therefore, the respondent No. 1 6 moved M.A. No. 649 of 2007 in O.A. No. 26 of 2007 and prayed to initiate contempt proceedings against the appellants for non-compliance of directions dated March 9, 2007 given by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench in O.A. No. 26 of 2007.

7. Feeling aggrieved the appellants invoked extraordinary jurisdiction of High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam under Article 226 of the Constitution by filing W.P. (C) No. 30695 of 2007 and prayed to set aside the directions given by the Tribunal in M.A. No. 649 of 2007, which was filed in O.A. No. 26 of 2007.

8. The High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam has dismissed the petition filed by the appellants vide judgment dated October 18, 2007, giving rise to the instant appeal.

11. In view of the consensus arrived at between the parties, the appellant No. 2, i.e., the Selection Committee through UPSC, is directed to convene the meeting for considering the case of the respondent No. 1 and other eligible candidates for promotion to Indian Forest Services within two months from today. In case the respondent No. 1 is selected for induction into Indian Forest Service, the intervening period shall be regularized notionally with effect from June 1, 2007 and the respondent No. 1 shall be accorded all benefits including monetary benefits. The 10 appeal is allowed only to the extent indicated hereinabove.

12. There shall be no orders as to costs.

May 16, 2008.
Illa Roy Chowdhury vs Shyamali Das & Ors

3. Contesting parties herein claimed themselves to be the heirs and legal representatives of Rani Rashmoni. We need not state the facts of the matter in detail as the same has been noticed by a Bench of this Court in Shyamali Das v. Illa Chowdhry, (2006) 12 SCC 300.

" We have gone through the review petition and the relevant documents. In our opinion no case for review is made out. The review petition is accordingly dismissed."

13. We will, therefore, proceed on the assumption that such an application indeed had been filed, and the contention made before us in the earlier round of litigation was wrong.

16. We would not have, therefore, interfered with the impugned judgment despite the concession made before us but keeping in view the statement made by the State of West Bengal, we are of the opinion that no fruitful purpose would be served in allowing the matter to proceed pursuant to the observations made by the learned Single Judge.

17. For the reasons abovesaid, the impugned judgment is set aside. This appeal is allowed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

May 16, 2008
M/S. Bhupendra Steel (P) Ltd vs Commnr. Of Central Excise

3. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the filing of the present appeal, are as under:

4. Appellant-assessee, hereinafter referred to as the 'assessee' is engaged in the manufacture of Steel bars and rods falling under sub-heading 7228.30 and steel ingots falling under sub-heading 7226.20 of Central Excise and Tariff Act, 1985 (for short 'the Tariff Act'). The Government of India vide Notification No.208/83-CE dated 1st August, 1983, as amended by Notification No.90/88-CE dated 1.3.1988 and Notification No.202/88-CE dated 20.5.1988 exempted certain final products falling under Chapter 72 from the whole of central excise duty, if they are produced out of the specified inputs described in (co.2) of the said notification on which the duty has already been paid. As per the explanation to the notification, inputs purchased from the market will be deemed to be duty paid except such stocks as are clearly recognizable as being non duty paid and charged to nil rate of duty.

5. Three show cause notices were issued to the assessee for the periods October, 1987 to March, 1988, April, 1988 to June, 1988 and September, 1988 to February, 1989 demanding duty of Rs.2,65,849.57, Rs.4,41,394.50 and Rs.59,569.82 respectively.

6. The assessee had purchased iron and steel scrap from the local market and used the same in the form of specified inputs (for availing the benefit of exemption under Notification Nos. (i) 208/83-CE dated 1.8.1983; (ii) 90/88- CE dated 1.3.1988 and (iii) 202/88-CE dated 20.5.1988) for the manufacture of steel ingots. The samples drawn at the time of seizure established that the assessee had purchased iron and steel, bazaar scrap including turning and boring, old dismantled machinery, old broker engineering goods, punch steel metal, containers and other broken articles of iron and steel including small percentage of sample pieces of rods, flats end cutting, on which duty might not have been paid at the time of clearance.

22. As far as the period after the introduction of present definition in Note 6 is concerned, the inputs are squarely covered by the definition of waste and scrap and waste and scrap does not find any mention in Notification No. 202/88 or 90/88.

23. For the reasons stated above, we do not find merit in this appeal and dismiss the same with costs.