L-NLProc/TathyaNyaya-and-FactLegalLlama-NyayaScrape-Datasets huggingface dataset:
Manoj Kumar vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh

The prosecution case, in brief, against Respondent No. 2 is that on the intervening night of 7 th/8th September, 2016 the accused—respondent No. 2 along with other accused persons visited the house of complainant at about 2 am, called out his brother   Prashant   (deceased)   and   took   him   away   on   motor cycle   in   presence   of   eyewitnesses,   on   the   pretext   of   some 2 urgent matter and killed him after giving severe beatings and ran a tractor over the deceased after placing him on a cot. On a   hue   and   cry   made   by   the   eyewitnesses,   the   accused   ran away from the spot. The motive behind committing the crime is allegedly linked to previous financial transactions between the accused and the deceased. The FIR was registered against the accused at the instance of complainant—appellant herein at 7.30 a.m. on 8th  September, 2016 for offences punishable under   Section   302/34,   IPC.   The   Investigating   Officer   made recoveries   from   the   spot   of   occurrence   and   postmortem   of deceased was done wherein the cause of death was specified as due to shock and hemorrhage.

The initial bail application moved by Respondent No. 2 before the learned Sessions Judge came to be dismissed with the observations that there were eight ante mortem injuries on the body of the deceased and the offence being of a serious nature. The accused—respondent No. 2 then moved the High Court,   and   by   the   order   impugned   herein,   the   High   Court granted him bail.

We direct the trial Court to speed up the trial and dispose 6 of   the   case   as  expeditiously  as possible, preferably  within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The accused—respondent No. 2 is at liberty to file fresh application   for   bail   before   the   trial   Court,   after   sometime. Needless to say that if such an application is filed, the trial Court will consider the same on its own merits, uninfluenced by any observations made by this Court.

The appeal is, accordingly, allowed.
Anand Kumar Mohatta vs State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) Department ...

3. This appeal is by an accused against whom a FIR was lodged on 20.08.2014, in respect of disputes arising out of the agreement dated 03.06.1993 entered into between the Appellant No.1 i.e. Mr. Anand Kumar Mohatta and the complainant i.e. Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd. The FIR was lodged about 21 years after the agreement. Initially, the FIR was also lodged against the wife of the Appellant No.1 i.e. Mrs. Shobha Anand Mohatta, but no offence has been made out against her after investigation.

5. Thereafter, on 14.03.2011, the Appellant No.1 wrote a letter stating that he does not wish to develop the property. The Appellants did not take any further action neither did they return the amount advanced by the Respondent No.2.

9. The High Court, however, disposed of the Appellants’ petition filed under Section 482 on the ground that the petition has been filed pre-maturely as the case is still at the stage of investigation. The High Court directed the investigation to proceed and further directed the Appellants to join the investigation. Appellants thereafter preferred the present appeal by way of Special Leave Petition in this Court. In the present appeal, this Court on the prima facie view of the 4 matter protected the Appellants from arrest and directed that the investigation be continued. Accordingly, the Respondent No.1 carried out investigation and has filed a report under Section 173 of the Cr. P.C in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House Court, Delhi. Since, the police have now submitted a charge sheet, Appellants have additionally filed amendment application seeking to incorporate prayer for quashing of charge sheet in addition to prayer for quashing of the FIR.

Accordingly, appeal is allowed along with the application filed by the Appellants seeking amendment of main prayer.
Santosh @ Santhosh Kumar vs State Of Kerala

5. By   order   dated   13.09.2010,     the   Sessions Judge   acquitted   Accused   No.   3   but   convicted   the appellant herein (Accused No. 2) and Accused No.1 and   sentenced   them   to   undergo   rigorous 2 imprisonment for five years and a fine of Rs.1 lakh and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.

6. The appellant felt aggrieved and filed appeal in the  High Court  of Kerala. By impugned order, the High Court upheld the conviction but interfered in the quantum of sentence awarded to the appellant by the Sessions Judge. The High Court reduced the jail sentence from 5 years to 3 years and maintained the   imposition   of   fine   amount   of   Rs.1   lakh   being mandatory for imposition along with jail sentence.

7. The   appellant   (Accused   No.2)   felt   aggrieved and filed the present appeal by way of special leave against the order of the High Court in this Court.

20. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal succeeds and is accordingly allowed. The impugned order is modified to the extent that the appellant is now  awarded  jail sentence of "already undergone". However, so far as the fine amount of Rs. one lakh 7 imposed by the Courts is concerned, it is modified and accordingly enhanced from Rs. one Lakh to Rs. one Lakh Fifty Thousand (Rs.1,50,000/­). In other words, the appellant is now awarded jail sentence of "already   undergone"   and   a   fine   of   Rs.1,50,000/­. Failure   to   deposit   the   enhanced   fine   amount,   the appellant will have to undergo one more year of jail sentence.

November 16, 2018  8
Rakesh Malhotra vs Kamaljit Singh Sandhu .

2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 29.2.2016 passed in R.S.A. No. 4015 of 2011 by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, by which the High Court has allowed the said appeal preferred by the original defendant Nos. 2 and 3 by setting aside the judgment and order dated 10.8.2011 passed by the Additional District Judge, Gurgaon and, consequently, has dismissed the suit preferred by the appellant herein (original plaintiff). The original plaintiff (appellant herein) Digitally signed by MUKESH KUMAR has preferred the present appeal.

3. The facts leading to this appeal in nutshell are as follows: 2

3.4 On the basis of the averments in the plaint and the written statement, the learned trial Court framed the following issues:

4.2 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of the learned first Appellate Court setting aside the order of the learned trial Court, original defendant nos. 2 and 3 preferred R.S.A. No. 4015 of 2011 before the High Court. By the impugned judgment and order dated 29.2.2016, the High Court has allowed the said appeal and consequently set aside the judgment and decree of the first Appellate Court and dismissing the suit qua other reliefs and has restored the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court. 4.3 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order of the High Court, the original plaintiff has preferred the present appeal.

5.6 By making the above submissions, it is requested to allow the present appeal and quash the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court and consequently restoring the judgment and order passed by the first Appellate Court and to decree the suit.

1. Considering the aforementioned facts and circumstances of the case, the plaintiff is not entitled such reliefs, except of decree of recovery of amount paid to the original defendant no. 1.

7.4 In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we are in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned trial Court as well as that of the High Court, in not granting the other reliefs and granting the decree of recovery of the amount paid by the original plaintiff to the original defendant no. 1 only. In view of the reasons stated above, we see no reason to interfere with the judgment and order passed by the High Court and, consequently, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. 14

8. However, as agreed, the original defendant nos. 2 and 3 are directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- to the original plaintiff ex-gratia, which they have agreed to pay to put an end to the litigation and to buy a peace, to be paid to the original plaintiff within a period of six weeks from today. On payment of the aforesaid amount of Rs.10,00,000/- to the original plaintiff by original defendant nos. 2 and 3, any proceedings pending between the parties, if any, shall stand terminated.

9. With the above observations and directions, the present appeal stands dismissed, however, with no costs. I.A., if any, stands disposed of.
Godrej And Boyce Manufacturing Company ... vs Engineering Workerss Association

3. In   order   to   appreciate   the   issues   involved   in these appeals, few facts need mention hereinbelow.

12.   In our opinion, this being obviously an error apparent on the face of the record of the case and 7 rightly   admitted   by   the   learned   counsel   appearing for the respondents, we have no option but to set aside the impugned order and remand the case to the High Court for deciding the writ petitions afresh on   merits.   We   express   no   opinion   on   any   of   the issues dealt with by the High Court in the impugned order.

13. In  our   view,   the  mistake  being   apparent,  the impugned   order   deserves   to   be   set   aside   on   this ground alone.

14. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeals succeed   and   are   accordingly   allowed.   Impugned order  is  set  aside. The writ petitions out of which these appeals arise are restored to their respective numbers for their disposal on merits in accordance with law.

15. We,   however, make it clear that we have not expressed our opinion on any of the issue arising in the   case   having   formed an  opinion  to  remand  the case   to   the   High   Court.   The   High   Court   will, therefore,   decide   the   writ   petitions   afresh uninfluenced by any of our observations strictly on merits.

16. We   request   the   High   Court   to   dispose   of   the writ   petitions,   expeditiously,   preferably   within   6 months.
The Central Board Of Secondary ... vs T.K. Rangarajan

5. The result is obviously an unprecedented awarding of marks to a certain section of students who opted for the examination in Tamil, thus securing them higher marks than all the other type of students irrespective of their actual performance in the examination. The problem arises because of the bi-lingual system of the examination.

16. We may not be understood to be taking the view that mistakes in translation, which give a disparate meaning, should be allowed to appear in question papers. The translation must be accurate. We are informed that from the next academic year 2019-20, the NEET Examination will be conducted by the National Testing Agency (NTA), a society set up by the Government of India with the objective of conducting examination for grant of admission etc. The NTA is established to ensure that the methodology of translation to conduct the examination is improved. In order to make it foolproof, it is proposed that the translation will be done by subject experts who are proficient in both the languages i.e. the source language and the target language.

We find this last mentioned clause is extremely significant to ensure that the students have some basic knowledge of English even if they are allowed the facility to write the examination in their regional language. Presumably, this is because the entire education for MBBS/BDS courses throughout the country are taught in English.

22. For these reasons, we set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court of Madras dated 10.07.2018. We direct that from the year 2019-20 onwards the NEET-UG Examination will 12 be conducted by the National Testing Agency and the bilingual examination will be conducted after the question paper is translated as set out according to the instructions in the affidavit dated 22.10. 2018 signed by Dr. Vikas Gupta, Director, National Testing Agency as mentioned above.

23. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed.
Uttar Pradesh Public Service ... vs Surendra Kumar

5. Altogether recommendations were made to fill up 176 vacancies. As evident from the counter affidavit, filed before the High Court, two posts were not filled, in view of directions issued by the High Court in Writ Petition 2 C.A.No.11149/18 No.32960 of 2010. After receipt of recommendation for 176 candidates, the State Government issued appointment letters to them, but 7 out of them did not join. Therefore, their candidature was cancelled by order dated 18.04.2013.

9. The High Court, by judgment and order dated 18.05.2018, allowed the Writ Petition by quashing the communication dated 23.07.2013 and issued further direction to send the names of requisite number of candidates to Director of Education (Basic).

6 C.A.No.11149/18

14. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is allowed. Accordingly, the judgment and order dated 18.05.2018 passed by the High Court of Allahabad in Writ Petition No.10180 of 2014 is set aside. There will be no order as to costs.

[R. Subhash Reddy] New Delhi November 22, 2018 7
State Of Tamil Nadu, Rep. By The ... vs M. Mangayarkarasi And Etc.

The two employees, M. Mangayarkarasi and M. Jayalakshmi, were working as Superintendent and Accountant respectively in the District Treasury at Salem. The charges against them were of having admitted and sanctioned bills of the office of the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes without proper verification, in accordance with the departmental procedures.

The case of the State is that during the period 1997-2000, a fraud involving misappropriation of a sum of Rs. 1.22 crores by the staff in the District Treasury Office, Salem came to light involving the presentation of 257 bogus bills in the Treasury. Following the submission of a Special Audit Report, a charge memo was issued against eleven members of the Treasury staff. Charges were framed in the course of the disciplinary proceedings. On the charges having been found to be established, the State Government issued an order of removal from service.

5. M. Mangayarkarasi 90 Rs. 45,28,003/-

In this view of the matter, we are of the view that there is merit in the present appeals. However, since the High Court had interfered only on the ground of parity of treatment, it would be appropriate to remand the proceedings back for fresh consideration on the other grounds of challenge to the findings in and outcome of the disciplinary proceedings.

To enable this process to be undertaken, we set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court dated 6.2.2015. The writ appeals shall stand restored to the file of the High Court for disposal afresh upon hearing the parties.

Since the employees have retired from service in the meantime, we request the High Court to expedite the disposal of the writ appeals and endeavor an expeditious disposal within six months from the date on which a certified copy of this order is placed on the record of the High Court.

We clarify that while we have disapproved of the view of the High Court on the question of parity, all other contentions of the parties are kept open to be adjudicated upon by the High Court. The appeals are, accordingly, disposed of. No costs.
Palani vs The State Of Tamil Nadu

2. Kamala (PW-1) is mother of deceased Sankar and Iyyappan (PW-2). Vijayalakshmi is the wife of PW-2 and Abbas (PW-3) is Digitally signed by brother of PW-1. The genealogy of the deceased party is as under:- MAHABIR SINGH Date: 2018.11.27 16:57:18 IST Reason: 1

3. Dr. Ulagammal (PW-7) conducted post-mortem on the dead body of deceased Sankar and after noting multiple injuries, issued post-mortem certificate (Ex.-P6) opining that the death was caused due to shock haemorrahage and multiple injuries. On 04.09.1996, Investigating Officer made application to the court and took accused No.2, 4, 5 and 6 from judicial custody to police custody. Based on the disclosure statements of A2, A4, A5 and A6, the 3 weapons – aruvals of different size (bill hooks) and knives (MO-17 to MO-20) were seized under Exts. P26 to P30 from various places pointed out by the above accused.

1) supported by medical evidence and other evidence, the trial court convicted all the accused under Sections 148, Section 435 read with Section 149 IPC and Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC and sentenced all of them to undergo imprisonment for life. In appeal, the High Court dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant/accused and also the appeals preferred by other accused No.1, 3, 5 and 6 and affirmed the conviction of the appellant and sentence of imprisonment imposed by the trial court. The High Court held that the testimony of eye-witness Kamala (PW-1) is reliable and the same is corroborated by medical evidence. The High Court held that the delay in registration of FIR was not fatal to 4 the prosecution case. The High Court allowed the appeal preferred by accused No.2 and acquitted him.

24. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. The appellant-accused is directed to surrender himself within a period of two weeks from today, failing which he shall be taken into custody to serve out the remaining sentence.

November 27, 2018 16
Gagandeep Singh vs The State Of Punjab

2. Appellant was No.3 in the select list for appointment to the post of District Programme Officer. He belongs to the reserved category of Balmiki/Majbhi Sikh. The selection commenced with the advertisement by the Punjab Public Service Commission on 21.12.2010. The written examination was conducted in the year Digitally signed by NARENDRA PRASAD Date: 2018.11.28 2012. One Gurpreet Singh was appointed against the reserved 18:23:15 IST Reason:

5. The appeal is disposed of with the direction to the respondents to make appointment in respect of Valmiki/Majbhi Sikh from the merit list published on 20.06.2012. Needful be done within a period of two months. In order to avoid any dispute on 4 seniority, it is made clear that the incumbent concerned will get seniority only from the date of appointment. No costs.

NOVEMBER 27, 2018.
Narayan Malhari Thorat vs Vinayak Deorao Bhagat

3. The aforesaid FIR No.35/2015 was lodged with Police Station, Washim on 14.02.2015 pursuant to information received from the Crl. Appeal No. ……….of 2018(Arising 2 out of SLP(Crl.)No.7933/2018) appellant. It was alleged that the daughter and son-in-law of the appellant were teachers in a village in a Zila Parishad School where the first respondent was also a teacher; the first respondent used to call on the mobile of the daughter of the appellant and used to harass her; that despite the efforts of the son-in-law in trying to make the first respondent see reason and stop calling said daughter, the first respondent continued calling her repeatedly; that on 09.02.2015 there was a verbal altercation between the son-in-law and the first respondent and that on 12.02.2015 said son-in-law committed suicide leaving a suicide note. True translation of said suicide note is to the following effect:

4. After the crime was registered, the first respondent had preferred an application for anticipatory bail which was rejected by the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Washim on 21.02.2015. The matter was carried further by filing Criminal Application [ABA]No.96 of 2015 in the High Court. The prayer was rejected by Crl. Appeal No. ……….of 2018(Arising 3 out of SLP(Crl.)No.7933/2018) the High Court vide order dated 07.04.2015. It was observed by the High Court:

7. The challenge raised by the first respondent was accepted by the High Court. After referring to the facts that the first respondent used to call on the mobile of the daughter-in-law and that there were Crl. Appeal No. ……….of 2018(Arising 5 out of SLP(Crl.)No.7933/2018) heated arguments between the son of the appellant and the first respondent, the High Court observed as under:

November 28, 2018.
Jarnail Singh vs Bhagwati(D) Tr.Lrs.

4. The appellants herein as defendants in the suit resisted the suit on several grounds.   As per the written statement, the suit is not properly valued for the purpose of the court fee and jurisdiction. Defendants have denied the relationship of the plaintiffs with late Jagan Nath, who is the owner of the suit schedule property.   It was further averred that as late 4 Jagan Nath was properly taken care of by the defendants, he has executed a registered Will dated 17.09.1970 bequeathing the properties in their favour;   the said Will was attested by Sadhu Singh and Bachan Singh; but they have admitted the factum   of   Jagan  Nath dying  issueless.   The relationship  of plaintiffs   with   Kirpo   is   denied   and   stated   that   they   are   in possession of the property from the last 15 to 16 years and hence sought for the dismissal of the suit.

7. The   unsatisfied   defendants   carried   the   matter   in   appeal which is numbered as Civil Appeal No.617/163/1982.   The lower   appellate   court   having   concurred   with   regard   to   the findings   on   the   Will   has   taken   a   different   view   on   the relationship of the plaintiffs with Jagan Nath and held that “Exhibit PX” does not prove the relationship of the plaintiffs and the Trial Court erred in relying on the admission of the defendants   in   the   other   suit   and   accordingly   set   aside   the Judgement and Decree of the Trial Court and consequently dismissed the suit.

2.   Whether the plaintiffs were able to establish the relationship   with   Jagan   Nath   and   discharged the burden of proof?

21. In the light of the above findings on issues 1 and 2 we are of the considered opinion that the judgment and decree of the High Court requires no interference from this court. In the aforesaid circumstances the appeal of the defendants has to fail   and   accordingly   appeal   is   dismissed   by   confirming   the judgment   and   decree   of   the   Trial   Court,   however,   without costs.
Roshina T vs Abdul Azeez K.T.

4. The   dispute   essentially   relates   to   the possession of a flat bearing No. 3D, 3 rd  floor located in   building   known   as   Royal   Court­Block   IV   at Kozhikode (hereinafter referred to as “the flat”) and is   between   the   appellant   and   respondent   No.   1 herein.

17. We   cannot,   therefore,   concur   with   the reasoning and the conclusion arrived at by the High Court   when   it   unnecessarily   went   into   all   the 8 questions of fact arising in the case on the basis of factual pleadings in detail (43 pages) and recorded a factual finding that it was the respondent No. 1 (writ petitioner)   who   was   in   possession   of   the   flat   and, therefore, he be restored with his possession of the flat by the appellant.

21. In   view   of   the   foregoing   discussion,   we   are unable   to   agree   with   the   reasoning   and   the conclusion   arrived   at   by   the   High   Court   in   the impugned order.

22. As a consequence, the appeal succeeds and is accordingly   allowed.   Impugned   order   is   set   aside. 10 The writ petition filed by respondent No. 1, out of which this appeal arises, stands dismissed.

23. Liberty   is,   however,  granted   to   the  parties   to file civil proceedings in the Civil Court for claiming appropriate reliefs in relation to the flat in question for adjudication of their respective claims.

24. We,   however,   make   it   clear   that   while prosecuting   any   civil/criminal   proceedings   by   the parties, as the case may be, any observations and the   findings   recorded   by   the   High   Court   in   the impugned order will not be looked into because the impugned   order   has   since   been   set   aside   by   this Court.

December 03, 2018  11