L-NLProc/TathyaNyaya-and-FactLegalLlama-NyayaScrape-Datasets huggingface dataset:
Rajeshwar Baburao Bone vs State Of Maharashtra & Anr

3. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass.

5. Since the appellant has secured employment with Zilla Parishad, Beed, on the post reserved for Scheduled Tribe category, the tribe certificate issued in his favour was referred to the Scrutiny Committee for verification after 18 years from the date of appointment. The appellant submitted several documents in support of his claim including the oldest record of 1348 fasali pertaining to his grandfather namely Gundaji Narsingh Bone wherein his caste is recorded as Mahadev Koli.

7. It was later on revealed that tribe certificate issued in favour of appellant’s brother by name Sharadkumar Baburao Bone has been invalidated by the Committee by order dated 20.10.2004 and said order was communicated to him on 27.10.2004. The writ petition challenging the order passed by the Committee invalidating tribe claim of the brother of the appellant, being Writ Petition No. 6934 of 2004, has been dismissed by the High Court. The SLP filed against that order of the High Court has been dismissed by this Court.

10. Hence the present Appeal by Special Leave.

14. In the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the opinion that the impugned order passed by the High Court needs no interference and this appeal deserves to be dismissed. However, we hold that because of inordinate delay in considering the certificate of the appellant, the benefit of the certificate already availed by the appellant shall not be disturbed making it clear that the appellant shall not be entitled to take any further benefit of reservation in future including the benefit of continuing in service.

15. In the result, this appeal is dismissed with the observation made hereinabove.
Yakub Abdul Razak Memon vs State Of Maharashtra And Anr

8. Since the petitioner had not filed a curative petition, he was entitled to seek reopening of the review petition, as per the liberty granted to certain categories of cases in Mohd. Arif Alias Ashfaq (supra). Accordingly, his review petition was heard by a three-Judge Bench in the open Court. After rejection of the said review petition on 09.04.2015, he filed a curative petition on 22.05.2015 which also got dismissed on 21.07.2015. At this stage, it is imperative to state that despite the Constitution Bench saying that there shall be oral hearing of the application for review for a maximum period of 30 minutes, the review petition was heard for almost ten days. The purpose of mentioning the same is that ample opportunity was afforded to the petitioner.

14. Resultantly, we do not perceive any merit in this writ petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.
Ramesh Kumar vs Union Of India & Ors

2. Background facts which led to the filing of this appeal are as under:- The appellant got enrolled in the Indian Army on the post of Store Keeper Technical/Sepoy on 19.03.1983 and was subsequently promoted to the rank of Havildar on 01.08.1989. While the appellant was so working, a Summary Court Martial (SCM) for the offences under Sections 41(i), 39 (a) and 63 of the Army Act was initiated against him. After completion of the inquiry and on proved charges by an order dated 03.06.1992, the appellant was sentenced to:- (i) reduction in rank; (ii) dismissal from service and

3. Case of the appellant for promotion to the rank of Naib Subedar came up for consideration before Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) on 01.08.1997; but the appellant was not considered for promotion and according to the respondents, the appellant did not meet the discipline criteria for promotion as the appellant was having two red ink entries during preceding five years. On appellant’s repeated representations for his promotion as per his seniority, finally his claim was considered by the DPC held on 15.03.2000 and he was granted promotion w.e.f. 01.01.2000 with ante-dated seniority w.e.f. 01.08.1997 alongwith his batchmates. However, no direction was issued regarding any pay and allowances to the appellant in the higher rank of Naib Subedar from the back date; but his seniority was maintained from 01.08.1997 when his batchmates have been promoted.

14. The impugned orders passed by the High Court are set aside and this appeal is allowed. The respondents shall release the arrears of pay and allowances to the appellant for the period from 01.08.1997 till the date of his actual promotion that is 13.11.2000 in the promotional post of Naib Subedar within eight weeks from today. No order as to costs.

July 31, 2015
Parhlad And Anr vs The State Of Haryana

The present appeal depicts a sordid situation and sketches a morbid scenario, for the sad story commences with total trust, as it has to be, inasmuch as the first appellant, the uncle of the prosecutrix, being the cousin of her father, takes her with him but does not return and thus betrays the trust, definitely inconceivable, for the young girl, PW 7, who had remotely no idea about his dubious design when she accompanied him to the house of the appellant No. 2, the maternal uncle of the first appellant, that she would be sexually assaulted first by the appellant No. 1 and thereafter by the appellant No.2 who also succeeded in his threats to the uncle – and at the end, they, after being sent up for trial for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366A/376/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) in order to escape the charge and in justification of their carnal desire and perverted acts, pleaded consent.

2. As the factual score would uncurtain, the case of the prosecution from the very beginning was that the prosecutrix was below sixteen years of age. The trial court believed the prosecution as regards the age of the prosecutrix as a consequence of which the plea of the defence had to collapse like a pack of cards which entailed conviction for the charged offences as per judgment dated March 10, 2003 which led to the sentence of rigorous imprisonment of ten years under Section 376(2)(g) IPC with separate sentence under Section 363 IPC with the stipulation that all the sentences shall be concurrent.

3. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa in Sessions Case No. 55 of 2002 were assailed before the High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 914 of 2003 and the learned Single Judge referred to the evidence of Manohar Lal, PW-1, Principal of the Govt. Primary School, Rupana Khurd, Dist. Sirsa, Bhajan Lal, PW-9, the father of the prosecutrix, Dr. Santosh Bishnoi, who had examined the accused and the prosecutrix and took note of the ossification test report, Ext. DA, and upon due appreciation of ocular and documentary evidence brought on record concurred with the view expressed by the trial court that the prosecutrix was below 16 years of age. Be it stated that the High Court did not think it appropriate to rely on the ossification test report as it found a number of flaws with it and opined that it was not worthy of credence. Additionally, the High Court has opined that the prosecutrix had no idea about the evil design of accused Parhlad, her uncle and she had proceeded with him in good faith and under compulsive circumstances she was raped by the accused persons and, therefore, there was really no consent. On the basis of the said analysis, it affirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial court. Hence, this appeal by special leave.

12. Consequently, the appeal being, sans stratum, stands dismissed.
M/S. Swastika Enterprises & Anr vs Commnr. Of Customs, Kolkata & Ors

From the facts noted above, it is clear that on the import of the old vessel, the appellants had filed Bill of Entry under Section 46 of the Customs Act. The appellants claimed exemption from payment of additional custom duty. This stand of the appellants was not accepted resulting into an endorsement by the Revenue asking the appellants to pay additional customs duty of ?52,20,000. According to the appellants, this amounts to notice of demand within the meaning of clause (b) of Section 95(ii). It is also the case of the appellants that though technically the writ petition filed by the appellants challenging the aforesaid additional customs duty was disposed of by the High Court on July 20, 1993, the order of Court was categorical, namely, the result of the appellants' case was made dependant upon the outcome of the appeal which was preferred by the Revenue in the case of M/s. Amar Steel Industries and in that sense the matter was still pending.

The aforesaid discussion leads us to conclude that the impugned judgment of the High Court is erroneous and warrants to be set aside. We, accordingly, allow these appeals, set aside the impugned order and hold that the appellants shall be entitled to the benefit of Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme.

No costs.

AUGUST 04, 2015.

Date : 04/08/2015 These appeals were called on for judgment today.

For Appellant(s) Ms. Ruby Singh Ahuja,Adv.

Mr. Ashok Kumar Juneja,Adv.

Mr. Chand Qureshi,Adv.

Mr. R. N. Keshwani,Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Sanjai Kumar Pathak,Adv.for Mr. B. Krishna Prasad,Adv.

The appeals are allowed in terms of the signed judgment.

No costs.
M/S. Jayaswal Neco Ltd vs Commnr. Of Central Excise, Raipur

The appellant/assessee is the manufacturer of pig iron and scrap of iron on which he pays excise duty. The Central Excise Rules, at the relevant time, permitted payment of duty every fortnight instead of consignment basis. In this manner on the goods cleared in the first fortnight the duty was payable by 20th of the said month and for the goods cleared during the second fortnight the duty was payable by 5th May of the next month. The Revenue Authorities found that in the months of August, October and November 2000, the appellants had not paid the central excise duty on time. This led to the passing of an order by the Revenue suspending the facility of clearing goods of paying the duty every fortnight and interest. Instead, the appellant was directed to make the payment of duty on consignment basis for a period of two months, i.e., from 19.12.2000 to 18.02.2001.

The result of the aforesaid discussion would be to allow these appeals and set aside the decision of the CESTAT. We order accordingly.

AUGUST 06, 2015.

[2] 1999 (112) ELT 353 (SC)
A.N. Sachdeva (Dead) By Lrs. & Ors vs Maharshi Dayanand University,Rohtak ...

2. The appellants are receiving pension after their retirement from M.D. University, however, it is confined to the services rendered by them in the same university. Deceased A.N. Sachdeva and Ram Parshad Saini were appointed in Punjab University. R.K. Tuteja, petitioner no.3 and Prem Kumar were appointed as Lecturer and Clerk respectively. They were appointed without any break in M.D. University.

3. A.N. Sachdeva, since deceased was appointed as Steno-Typist in Punjab University on 7.8.1961, thereafter as Private Secretary to Vice-Chancellor in M.D. University on 1.5.1976, promoted as Deputy Registrar in August, 1988 and retired from the service of M.D. University on 31.12.2000.

Ram Prashad Saini after rendering services from 16.11.1962 to 14.1.1975 in Punjab University was appointed as Asistant in Kurukshetra University on 15.1.1975 and served till 11.5.1977 and on 12.5.1977 he was appointed in M.D. University and retired from service on 31.10.1999.

It is, therefore requested that the cases may be decided accordingly.

Minimum qualifying service being the essential consideration, even according to the Bank, there is no reason why the ex-servicemen like the respondents, who from the date of their confirmation had put in more than twenty years of service, even taking the retirement age as 58, should be excluded. No reason is forthcoming in the counter-affidavit filed by the Bank for choosing the said date. When it is decided to extend the pensionary benefits to ex-servicemen drawing pension, the denial of the benefit to some of the serving employees should be based on rational and intelligible criterion. In substance, that is the view taken by the High Court and we see no reason to differ with that view”.

29. In view of aforesaid discussion, the appellants are entitled for the benefit of counting the services rendered in Punjab University/Kurukshetra University as qualifying service for the purpose of pension subject to fulfilment of the conditions specified in the memorandum dated 24.12.2001 etc. and in case the amount payable by the appellants towards contributory provident fund is less than the amount payable to them as pension, it would be adjusted by the respondents without insisting for its refund from the amount payable to the appellants. Let the exercise be completed within a period of three months from today.

30. The appeals are allowed, impugned judgment is set aside. We leave the parties to bear their own costs.
Government Mohindra Institute Of ... vs All India Council For Technical ...

3. Being aggrieved by the order of rejection dated 7th April, 2015, the Petitioner-College had filed an appeal against the said order before the Standing Appellate Committee of Respondent No.1. The Standing Appellate Committee had heard a representative of the Petitioner- College on 14th April, 2015 and at that time, the Petitioner-College had also been informed about some deficiencies which have been found at the time of physical inspection of the Petitioner-College. After affording a hearing to the Petitioner-College, a letter dated 24th April, 2015 had been addressed to the Standing Appellate Committee pointing out the deficiencies to be removed by the Petitioner-College. It is an admitted fact that letter dated 24th April, 2015, whereby the Standing Appellate Committee had been informed about the removal of deficiencies, had not been brought to the notice of the Standing Appellate Committee when it had convened its meeting on 27th April, 2015 and ultimately, on 30th April, 2015 a final order rejecting application for initiation of a new course had been passed by the Standing Appellate Committee.

7. In our opinion, by not placing the letter of the Petitioner-College dated 24th April, 2015 before the Standing Appellate Committee which had convened its meeting on 27th April, 2015, the principles of natural justice had been violated and therefore, the final order dated 30th April, 2015 passed by the Standing Appellate Committee of Respondent No.1 deserves to be quashed and set aside.

8. In view of the fact that the deficiencies have been removed, we direct Respondent No.1 to reconsider the case of the Petitioner-College as soon as possible, especially, in view of the fact that 15th August, 2015 is the last date for admitting the students to the course which the Petitioner-College is going to initiate.

9. The final decision which might be taken by Respondent No.1 shall be communicated to the Petitioner-College immediately and if the final decision is taken in favour of the Petitioner-College, the Petitioner shall be permitted to give admission to 60 students to MCA course which it proposes to commence and Respondent No.3-University is also directed to do the needful to grant the necessary permission to the Petitioner-College with regard to initiation of new course.

10. For the afore-stated reasons, looking at the peculiar facts of the case, we allow this petition and grant the relief, as prayed for, in the writ petition to the effect that the letters of rejection dated 7th April, 2015 and 30th April, 2015 issued by Respondent No.1, are quashed and set aside so that needful can be done for grant of approval to the Petitioner- College for setting up a new technical institute to run MCA course with an intake of 60 students for academic session 2015-16. Upon necessary permission being granted, Respondent No.3-University is directed to consider grant of affiliation to the Petitioner-College in respect of MCA course, which it proposes to initiate from academic year 2015-16.

10th August, 2015.
K.K.Gohil vs State Of Gujarat & Ors

2. The factual matrix of the case is that the appellant had joined the service on 16.11.1989 as a peon in the Social Welfare Department and, thereafter, the appellant was promoted as Junior Clerk in the pay-scale of Rs. 950-1500 vide order dated 30.6.1997 and posted under the Commissioner of Tribunal Development, Gujarat State and the said scale of Rs.950-1500 which came to be revised as Rs.3050-1590 in view of the Revision of Pay Rules, 1998 made effective from 1.1.1996.

6. Based on the above, higher grade scale that was granted to the appellant came to be withdrawn by the order dated 14.2.2008 and it is pleaded that no opportunity of hearing was given to the appellant. The order dated 14.2.2008 was challenged by the appellant by way of a by way of Special Civil Application No. 9683 of 2008 which was allowed on 5.2.2009 by the High Court quashing and setting aside the order dated 14.2.2008 and liberty was granted to the respondent Authority to pass appropriate order in accordance with law and on merits after giving an opportunity of hearing to the appellant.

14. Considering the entire facts of the case, vis-a-vis the Government Resolution time to time issued relating to the condition for giving benefit of promotion, we are of the view that the reasons assigned by the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court cannot be sustained in law. Hence, this appeal is allowed and the impugned order passed by the High Court is set aside. Consequently, it is held that the appellant is entitled to the higher pay scale on completion of nine years of service.
State Of Kerala And Ors vs S.Unnikrishnan Nair And Ors

3. The facts in detail need not be stated, for the controversy really lies in a narrow compass. As the factual matrix would unfurl, one Sampath was alleged to have been beaten to death by the investigating agency, that is, the State police, while he was in custody. His brother, Murukeshan, preferred W.P.(C) No.13426 of 2010 and during the pendency of the writ petition, he filed I.A. No.16944 of 2010. His prayer was basically for issuance of a direction to the Director, Central Bureau of Investigation (C.B.I.) to submit a detailed report regarding the investigation so far conducted and production of the entire case diary. As is manifest, he was not satisfied with the investigation conducted by the State police and his prayer was for better and more rigorous investigation. Be it noted, the High Court by an earlier order had directed the C.B.I. to investigate as there were certain allegations against the State police.

20. In the result, we do not perceive any merit in the appeal and the same stands dismissed accordingly.
Madras Inst.Of Dev. Studies & Anr vs K. Sivasubramaniyan & Ors

3. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass.

4. The appellant Institute issued an advertisement calling for applications for the positions of Professor, Associate Professor and Assistant Professor. The said advertisement contained a description of the three qualifications required to be possessed by the candidate. Several persons including respondent No.1-writ petitioner submitted application for appointment to the post of Associate Professor. The short-listing of the candidates was done by the Director of the Institute in consultation with the Chairman after informal consultation with senior Professors for evolving the criteria for short-listing of the candidates. The Selection Committee consisting of three noted Social Scientists as contemplated under the Rules conducted interviews and recommended a panel of five names. Thereafter, the Executive Council by Order dated 14.8.2006 approved the appointment of various persons to the posts of Professor, Associate Professor and Assistant Professor. Since the Institute had advertised for three posts, the first three i.e. respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4 were initially approached for the post of Associate Professor.

27. We, therefore, allow these appeals, set aside the impugned judgment and order passed by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.167 of 2008 and hold that the writ petitioner-respondent has no merit in the case inasmuch as there is no illegality in the decision dated 14.08.2006 taken by the appellant-Institute for appointment of aforesaid respondent nos. 2 to 6 to the post of Associate Professor.
Commnr.,Central Excise & Customs, ... vs M/S. Larsen & Toubro Ltd

clauses (A) and (B) including maintenance, repair, completion and finishing services such as glazing, plastering, floor and wall tiling, installation of electrical fittings of an immovable' property, service tax shall be payable on sixty per cent of the total amount charged for the works contract.

Explanation 2. - Where the gross amount charged by a service provider is inclusive of service tax payable, the value of taxable service shall be such amount as with the addition of tax payable, is equal to the gross amount charged.”

20. We also find that the assessees’ argument that there is no charge to tax of works contracts in the Finance Act, 1994 is correct in view of what has been stated above.

30. It now remains to consider the judgment of the Delhi High Court in G.D. Builders.

43. We need only state that in view of our finding that the said Finance Act lays down no charge or machinery to levy and assess service tax on indivisible composite works contracts, such argument must fail. This is also for the simple reason that there is no subterfuge in entering into composite works contracts containing elements both of transfer of property in goods as well as labour and services.

44. We have been informed by counsel for the revenue that several exemption notifications have been granted qua service tax “levied” by the 1994 Finance Act. We may only state that whichever judgments which are in appeal before us and have referred to and dealt with such notifications will have to be disregarded. Since the levy itself of service tax has been found to be non-existent, no question of any exemption would arise. With these observations, these appeals are disposed of.

45. We, therefore, allow all the appeals of the assessees before us and dismiss all the appeals of the revenue.

August 20, 2015
Parisons Agrotech (P) Ltd. & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors

The appellants are engaged in refining and manufacture of edible oils, vanaspathi, bakery shortening, margarine etc. Their registered offices and the factories are in the State of Kerala. The main raw material used in the manufacture of RBD palm oil is crude palm oil. The appellants have been importing this raw material from other countries, primarily from Indonesia and Malaysia. Before the issuance of the aforesaid Notifications, this import was through the ports of Kochi and Beypore from where it used to be transported by road to its main factories which are in Kozhikode and Malappuram, in the State of Kerala itself. The impugned Notifications have prevented them from importing crude palm oil through the ports of Kochi and Beypore. Instead, they are forced to import this raw material through the ports outside Kerala. The effect thereof is that distance from the ports of import to the factories of appellants in Kerala stands increased, in contrast with the situation prevailing earlier. It has led to increased transportation cost for the appellants and that is precisely the cause of grievance.

xx xx xx

xx xx xx