L-NLProc/TathyaNyaya-and-FactLegalLlama-NyayaScrape-Datasets huggingface dataset:
Jagannath (Dead) Thru Lrs. & Ors vs Sundarbai(Dead) Through Lr. & Anr

2. The plaintiff, who is now represented by his legal heirs, filed a suit before the trial court through his next friend and guardian Champalal on 30th December, 1960, praying that the Sale Deed dated 25th July, 1956, executed by defendant No. 2 Sundar Bai, his mother, a pardanasheen lady, during his minority in favour of defendant No.1 Jagannath be set aside as the sale had been effected without legal necessity and under the undue influence of defendant No. 1. On notice, defendant No. 2 i.e. the plaintiff's mother supported the claim of the plaintiff and suit was contested only by defendant No. 1 who is the vendee. In his written statement, it was pointed out that sale 2 deed had been executed for valid consideration on account of legal necessity and to discharge an antecedent debt and that the suit had been filed by the plaintiff in collusion with his mother. The suit was decreed by the trial court and it was held that the sale was without legal necessity and that defendant no. 1 had exercised undue influence on defendant No. 2 as she was a pardanasheen lady. The matter was thereafter taken in appeal by defendant No. 1 which was dismissed, though some of the observations with regard to the undue influence were set aside. The defendant still aggrieved filed a Second Appeal before the High Court. The High Court framed the following substantial questions of law:-

..................J [HARJIT SINGH BEDI] ..................J [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN] NEW DELHI MAY 06, 2010.
M/S Jeevan Diesels & Electricals Ltd vs M/S Jasbir Singh Chadha (Huf) & Anr

3. The material facts of the case are that the respondents-plaintiffs, claiming to be the landlords/owners of the premises bearing Flat No.205, (2nd Floor), Arunachal Building, 19, Barakhambha Road, New Delhi-110001 having area of 581 sq. ft., (super area) (hereinafter, `the suit premises') filed a suit against the appellant for recovery of possession and mesne profit. The case of the plaintiff-landlord in the plaint is that the appellant was inducted as a tenant vide lease deed dated 07.07.2003 at a monthly rent of Rs.23,200/- for a period of three years with effect from 07.07.2003. According to the respondents-plaintiffs the said lease dated 07.07.2003 was initially for a period of three years and which was to be renewed for a further period of three years as per the mutual consent of both the parties with 20% increase in the monthly rent. The main case of the plaintiff- landlord is that the said lease deed had expired by efflux of time and notice to that effect was sent to 2 appellant which was enclosed with the plaint. In paragraph 6 of the plaint further averment is that the appellant, despite determination of its tenancy of the suit property, has failed to vacate the suit property, and handover the possession thereof to the respondents-plaintiffs.

6. Paragraphs 5 and 6 of the plaint on which the respondents-plaintiffs rely are as follows:-

22. For the reasons discussed above and in view of the facts of this case this Court cannot uphold the 11 judgment of the High Court as well as of the Additional District Judge. Both the judgments of the High Court and of the Additional District Judge are set aside.

23. The matter is remanded to the trial Court for expeditious disposal of the suit as early as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of service of this order on the learned trial Court. It is made clear that this Court has not made any observation on the merits of the case.

24. The appeal is allowed. There will be no order as to costs.
Satheedevi vs Prasanna & Anr

3. The appellant owned 9.98 acres rubber plantation. She executed power of attorney No.376/2006 in favour of her own daughter (respondent No.1 herein). After sometime, respondent No.1 transferred the property to her husband (respondent No.2 herein) by registered sale deed No.1784/2007. The appellant filed O.S. No.231/2007 for cancellation of the power of attorney by alleging that respondent No.1 had misused the same and sold the property to her husband. By an order dated 21.5.2008, the trial Court directed the appellant to pay court fees on the market value of the plaint schedule property. The appellant challenged that order in Writ Petition No.17032/2008 (C) which was disposed of by the learned Single Judge of Kerala High Court vide his order dated 26.6.2008, the relevant portion of which reads as under:

4. In furtherance of the direction given by the High Court, the appellant applied for and she was granted permission to amend the plaint and to incorporate prayer for cancellation of the sale deed executed by respondent No.1 in favour of respondent No.2. In the amended plaint, value of the property was shown as Rs.7,00,000/- and accordingly, the court fees was paid. However by an order dated 3.7.2008, the trial Court directed the appellant to pay court fee on the market value of the plaint schedule property which was assessed at Rs.12 lakhs per acre.

5. Writ Petition No.21820/2008 filed by the appellant against the above mentioned order was dismissed by the learned Single Judge, who referred to the judgments of the Division Bench in Krishnan Damodaran v. Padmanabhan Parvathy (1972) Kerala Law Times 774, P.K. Vasudeva Rao v. Hari Menon AIR 1982 Kerala 35 and Pachayammal v. Dwaraswamy Pillai (2006) 3 Kerala Law Times 527 and held that in terms of Section 40 of the Act, the writ petitioner is required to pay court fees on market value of the property and not on the value specified in the sale deed.

32. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order of the learned Single Judge of Kerala High Court as also the order passed by the trial Court directing the appellant to pay court fee on the market value of the property, in respect of which the sale deed was executed by respondent No.1 in favour of respondent No.2, are set aside. The trial Court shall now proceed with the case and decide the same in accordance with law. The parties are left to bear their own costs.
Utpal Das & Anr vs State Of West Bengal

7. Aggrieved by the order of acquittal, the State of West Bengal preferred an appeal before the High Court. The High Court upon reappreciation of the evidence and the totality of circumstances held that the trial court has extended benefit of doubt to the appellants under misconception of facts and wrong appreciation of evidence and accordingly came to the conclusion that the appellants are guilty of the offence punishable under Section 376/34 of the IPC. However, the High Court confirmed the acquittal of the other accused. The order of acquittal of those accused has attained its finality since there is no appeal preferred by the State. Hence, the appellants are before us in this appeal challenging their conviction and award of sentence by the High Court under Section 376/34 of the IPC.

12. In exhibit P-9 (report) the prosecutrix (PW-14) alleged that on 28.4.1984, at about 8.00 p.m when she was going in a rickshaw towards Kalna Gate all of a sudden the appellants and other accused surrounded the rickshaw and told the rickshaw puller to divert the destination and they forcibly took her to a nearby house under construction and tried to rape her. She made an attempt to save herself and requested them to free her. The appellants did not heed to her request but forcibly committed rape on her one after another. She was prevented from raising her voice as they threatened her to kill. One of them was holding a knife. Thereafter, the accused took her to a nearby tea stall and locked her inside it. That after about 15/20 minutes one Asok Babu, Parimal Babu (PW-

2) and Probal Babu (PW-1) and many others came there and rescued her from that shop after unlocking the door. She narrated the entire episode before them. Thereafter all of them took her away to the house of Joydeb Projapati where she took shelter in the night. Next day morning PW-1, PW-2 and others who rescued her came along with the accused where she identified the appellants as the one who committed rape on her. She also stated that she experienced pain in her private parts and all over her body.

21. For all the aforesaid reasons, we find no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed.
Samir Chandra Das vs Bibhas Chandra Das & Ors

2. Challenge in this appeal is to the Division Bench Judgment of the Calcutta High Court wherein the appeal filed by respondent herein, namely, Bibhas Chandra Das was allowed holding that no probate could be granted in favour of the present appellant, namely, Samir Chandra Das.

3. Following factual panorama would clarify the controversy herein:

4. Two sale deeds were executed by Parul Bala Das and Jayanti whereby 5 cottahs of land out of 7 cottahs purchased earlier by the testator in the `benami' of Parul Bala Das and Jayanti was sold on 10.10.1983. It is to be mentioned that these sale deeds were countersigned by Jogesh Chandra Das as also Samir Chandra Das. The remaining two cottahs of land was sold by Parul and Jayanti by sale deed dated 12.02.1988. The sale proceeds are alleged to have been used for running the Indian Oil Corporation Gas Dealership for Jayanti and Sashwati. On 17.07.1984 an application came to be made for probate by Samir Chandra Das and Parul Bala Das. However, during the pendency of the probate proceedings, Parul Bala Das expired on 18.01.1990. This probate application was supported by all excepting Bibhas Chandra Das, the respondent herein. Since the probate became contentious, the application for probate was refiled on 22.01.1986 and the proceedings were renumbered as Original Suit No. 6 of 1986.

16. However, since there is no authoritative pronouncement, we are proceeding to test the judgment.

20. In the result, the appeal succeeds. The order of the appellate Court is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the appellate Court for decision on merits regarding the valid execution or attestation of the Will. The appeal succeeds with the costs of Rs.25,000/-.

May 7, 2010.
Moniruddin Ahmd.@ Lalu Dealer & Ors vs State Of West Bengal

2) Case of the prosecution in brief:

Another accused called Rausan also struck him with a deadly weapon. After seeing some residents of the locality crowding around, the miscreants stopped chasing the other witnesses. The informant and other witnesses saved their lives, hiding in the paddy fields. With the injured succumbing to his injury, the matter was reported to the local Police Station.

v) Aggrieved by the said judgment and order of conviction, the appellants herein and 9 others moved the High Court in C.R.A. No. 339 of 2002 and C.R.A. No. 354 of 2002. C.R.A. 339 of 2002 was preferred by Moniruddin Ahmed @ Lalu Dealer and the other C.R.A. No. 354 of 2002 was preferred by the other 9 accused and 2 of the appellants herein. The High Court, by its judgment and order dated 08.02.2006, dismissed C.R.A. No. 339 of 2002 moved by Moniruddin Ahmed @ Lalu Dealer while allowing C.R.A. No. 354 of 2002 in part moved by the other 9 accused and upheld the conviction of 2 of the appellants herein viz., Rausan Sekh and Salim Sekh. Aggrieved by the above conviction, the appellants have approached this Court by way of special leave.

9) In the light of the above discussion, we are in agreement with the conclusion arrived at by the High Court. Consequently, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed.

MAY 10, 2010 9
T. Narasimhulu & Ors vs State Of A.P. & Ors

2. The relevant facts very briefly are that on 28.07.1983 the Government of India sent a Circular to all the State 2 Governments to depute the Forest Range Officers who have passed the Forest Ranger Course with honours for admission to two year course at the State Forest College for the post of Assistant Conservator of Forest. In response to the Circular, the Government of Andhra Pradesh sent the Forest Range Officers, who had secured honours in Forest Ranger Course, on deputation to the State Forest College for training as Assistant Conservators of Forests during the period 08.04.1986 to 23.06.1994. On 13.11.1994, the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal delivered a judgment in O.A. No.3258 of 1994 holding that the deputation of Forest Range Officers, namely, Sri B. Narayan Reddy and Sri T. P. Thimma Reddy, for training as Assistant Conservators of Forests was contrary to the Andhra Pradesh Forest Service Rules, 1965 (for short `the Forest Service Rules'). On 29.05.1995, the Government of Andhra Pradesh issued G.O.Ms. No. 35 adding a proviso to Rule 2 of the Forest Service Rules that Forest Range Officers who secured first and second ranks in their batches for 3 Honours in Ranger's Training Course shall be eligible for appointment as Assistant Conservators and this G.O.Ms. No. 35 was published in the Gazette of the Andhra Pradesh on 01.06.1995. On 03.07.1995, the Andhra Pradesh Government issued G.O.Ms. No.51 amending this proviso to Rule 2 of the Forest Service Rules so as to provide that Forest Range Officers who secured Honours in their batches in the Rangers Training Course shall be eligible for appointment as Assistant Conservators and this G.O.Ms. No.51 was published in the Gazette of Andhra Pradesh on 12.09.1996. The appellants who were working as Assistant Conservators of Forests challenged the amendments to Rule 2 of the Forest Service Rules by G.O.Ms. No.35 and G.O.Ms. No.51 before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal and thereafter before the High Court. By the impugned judgment, the Division Bench of the High Court has dismissed the Writ Petitions.

14. Rule 2 together with the proviso as amended by G.O.Ms. No.51 is quoted hereinbelow:

15. In the result, we do not find any merit in these appeals and we accordingly dismiss the same, but there shall be no order as to costs.
Gopal Singh & Ors vs State Of M.P

The prosecution story is as under:

Inspector O.P.Katiyar PW13 reached the place of incident along with a police force and found the dead bodies. A Ruqa was recorded at 4.40 p.m. at the site and on its basis a formal FIR was registered in the Police Station. The dead bodies were thereafter dispatched to the hospital for post-mortem which was performed by Dr. R.K.Sharma PW1 who found 28 injuries on each of the two deceased. During the course of the investigation, the accused were arrested and on the basis of their disclosure statements, the weapons of offence were also recovered. The police also ascertained that the two parties were very closely related inter-se and that there was gross enmity between them with respect to certain Crl. Appeal No. 1297/2008 3 agricultural land. On the completion of the investigation, the accused were charged for an offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC as they pleaded not guilty, they were brought to trial.

4. Aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal, the State of Madhya Pradesh filed an appeal in the High Court and the appeal has been allowed. The judgment of the High Court is under challenge before us after the grant of special leave.

11. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the judgment of the High Court is erroneous for the above reasons. We, accordingly, allow the appeal and direct the acquittal of the accused. If they are in custody, they shall be released forthwith. If they are on bail, their bail bonds shall stand discharged.
Suresh Prasad Singh vs Dullin Phul Kumari Devi And Ors

2. The relevant facts briefly are that land measuring 1.30 acres comprising Revisional Survey Plot Nos.1501, 1512, 1513, 1514 and 1527 of Khata No.229 in village Paiga in District Bhojpur in Bihar was sold by Brij Bihari Singh and Rash Bihari Singh to respondent No.1 by a registered Sale Deed on 04.08.1980. Soon thereafter, the appellant filed an application before the Deputy Collector, Land 2 Reforms, Sadar, Arrah, under Section 16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (for short "the Act") claiming that he was a co-sharer and a boundary raiyat in respect of the land and that the land be transferred to him. The appellant also deposited the purchase money together with 10% extra of the purchase money in accordance with the proviso to Section 16(3)(i) of the Act. The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, however, rejected the application of the appellant by his order dated 10.02.1981. The appellant thereafter filed an appeal against the order of rejection before the Additional Collector, Bhojpur (Arrah) and by order dated 06.04.1993 the Additional Collector allowed the appeal. The Respondent No.1 challenged the order of the Additional Collector before the Board of Revenue in a revision and the Board of Revenue set aside the order passed by the Additional Collector. The appellant then filed a Writ Petition being C.W.J.C. No.13318 of 1993 and by order dated 06.03.1995, a learned Single Judge of the Patna 3 High Court set aside the order passed by the Board of Revenue and remitted the matter back to the Board of Revenue for reconsideration on the question whether there has been a partition between the appellant and Brij Bihari Singh and Rash Bihari Singh prior to 21.06.1980 and whether the appellant ceased to be a co-sharer in respect of the land. Thereafter, the Board of Revenue again held that the appellant was not entitled to pre- empt under Section 16(3) of the Act and set aside the order of the Additional Collector in the appeal and restored the order of the Deputy Collector dated 10.02.1981 rejecting the claim of pre-emption made by the appellant. Aggrieved, the appellant filed a fresh Writ Petition being C.W.J.C. No.7714 of 1997 before the Patna High Court and the learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the Writ Petition by order dated 17.11.1999. The appellant then filed L.P.A. No.127 of 2000 before the Division Bench of the High Court and by the impugned judgment, the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the L.P.A. of the appellant. 4

15. For the aforesaid reasons, we set aside the impugned judgment of the Division Bench in L.P.A. No. 127 of 2000, the order of the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No.7714 of 1997 and the order of the Board of Revenue and the Deputy Collector and direct the concerned Collector to direct respondent No.1 to convey the land in favour of the appellant by executing and registering a document of transfer and put the appellant in vacant possession of the land in accordance with the provisions of Section 16(3) of the Act.

The appeal is accordingly allowed with no order as to costs.
Ranveer Yadav vs State Of Bihar

3. The reference by the Judge was made for the reason that during the course of the Sessions Trial No.46/93 on 13.02.2008, five of the alleged contemnors were on one side and the sixth contemnor, the appellant Ranveer Yadav, on the other side, and all of them disrupted the proceedings by aggressively exchanging heated words and creating unpleasant scenes in Court. The decorum and dignity of the Court was so much threatened that the Judge was forced to rise.

4. Out of the six contemnors, Bharat Yadav, Bimal Yadav, Ajay Yadav, Pandav Yadav and Madan Yadav are accused in the Sessions Trial No. 46/93. The appellant Ranveer Yadav, an witness in the case and was due to be cross- examined on that day, i.e. 13.02.2008.

5. The High Court on the basis of such reference issued notice on 11.07.2008 to show cause why the alleged contemnors should not be held guilty of Criminal Contempt for their acts set out in the reference.

6. In the joint affidavits filed by the first five contemnors, they tendered their apologies for creating the disturbance and stated that the main person responsible for the ruckus was the appellant Ranveer Yadav. They stated the scene was created by him to delay his cross-examination.

30. Apart from belated apology in many cases such apology is not accepted unless it is bonafide.

34. For the reasons aforesaid, the appeal fails, the judgment of the High Court is affirmed. The appellant is to serve the sentence in terms of the High Court order. Notices issued on other respondents, namely, Bharat Yadav, Bimal Yadav, Ajay Yadav, Pandav Yadav and Madan Yadav are discharged.
Exec.Engineer,Uttaranchal Power ... vs M/S Kashi Vishwanath Steel Ltd.& Ors

9.The above petition was allowed by the High Court of Uttaranchal by its order dated 17th January, 2007. The High Court took the view that since the petitioner KVSL did not require assured supply of 500 hours electricity in a month it was not liable to pay 15% surcharge and that the exemption granted by the U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. was valid and in accordance with the provisions of the Notification dated 8th September, 2000. The demand raised by the Corporation was accordingly struck down. Aggrieved by the said order the Uttaranchal Power Corporation filed Civil Appeal No.1106 of 2007 in this Court which was heard alongwith Civil Appeal No.5789 of 2002 filed by LML Ltd. against the order passed by the High Court of Allahabad dismissing Writ Petition No.40692 of 2000 filed by the said company. Similar other appeals filed by other units against identical orders passed by the High Court of Allahabad were also heard and disposed of by this Court by a common order dated 13th December, 2007. This Court held that in so far as the U.P. Power Corporation had made a promise to anyone of the consumers the same was enforceable. In the case of Uttarakhand Power Corporation, however, this Court found no such promise to have been made to the consumer. Civil Appeal No.1106/2007 filed by the Uttarakhand Power Corporation against the judgment of the High Court of Uttarakhand was accordingly allowed on that basis. In so far as appeals arising out of the judgment of the Allahabad High Court and touching the question of surcharge on consumers drawing power from independent feeders were concerned the same were allowed to be withdrawn in view of the fact that several matters involving the said question were pending before the Regulatory Commission. The appellants were permitted to agitate the said point before the Commission. The relevant portion of the order passed by this Court may at this stage be extracted:

12. The above application was heard and finally disposed of by a Bench of Hon'ble Harjit Singh Bedi and Hon'ble Aftab Alam, JJ. with the following direction:

13.12.2007 of this Court be recalled in C.A. No.1106 of 2007. We order accordingly. C.A. No.1106 of 2007 will be heard on its own merit."

13. It is in the light of the above order that this appeal has been heard for disposal afresh.

20. We allow this appeal and set aside the order 17 th January, 2007 passed by the High Court of Uttaranchal in Writ Petition No.936 of 2001 filed by respondent- KVSL with costs of Rs.50,000/-.