L-NLProc/TathyaNyaya-and-FactLegalLlama-NyayaScrape-Datasets huggingface dataset:
M/S. A.P.T. Ispat Pvt.Ltd vs U.P. Small Industrial Corpn. Ltd. & Anr

2. The Managing Director of the Corporation drew up the two identical recovery certificates and sent them to the District Magistrate, Lucknow, stating that the Directors of the appellant company had received from the Corporation's Dadanagar depot 1027.15 MT wire rods (iron and steel) worth Rs.1,54,93,421/- (Rupees one crore fifty four lakhs ninety three thousand four hundred twenty one only). But the payment of the goods had not been made to the Corporation and it was to be recovered from the persons (named in the recovery certificates as the company's Directors) together with interest. Paragraphs 1 and 3 of the recovery certificate are relevant for the present and are reproduced below:

3. In accordance with the Government Order No. 12/3/7704/Revenue-7 dated 13.11.75 send the amount recovered from the defaulter by a bank draft drawn in favour of the Corporation (U.P. Small Industries Corporation Limited, Kanpur) to his office. "

(emphasis added)

17. For the reasons discussed above, we are of the view that in the facts of this case the two impugned recovery certificates are quite illegal and untenable and we are unable to sustain the High Court order coming under appeal.

19. For all these reasons the order of the High Court is set aside and the impugned recovery certificates are quashed.

20. It is made clear that this judgment shall not in any way affect the criminal case instituted against the Directors of the appellant company and it will proceed on its own merits and in accordance with law. This judgment shall also not stand in the way of the respondent Corporation in seeking 14 recovery of its claims from the appellant by any other means duly sanctioned by law.

21. In the result the appeal is allowed but with no order as to costs.
Admin.Union Territory Of D.&N.Haveli vs Gulabhia M.Lad

2. The question that calls to be determined in this appeal by special leave is : on consideration of the report of the Inquiring Authority wherein misconduct of the respondent has been proved and after following the prescribed procedure, the Disciplinary Authority ordered his removal from service and the departmental appeal against that order has been dismissed by the Appellate Authority, whether Central Administrative Tribunal was justified, on the facts found, in interfering with the order of punishment on the ground that co-delinquents were awarded lesser punishment in departmental appeals and directing the appellant to reconsider the whole matter and give the respondent the same treatment which has been meted out to the co-delinquents.

5. The respondent filed the departmental appeal against the order of punishment dated April 23, 2004 before the Appellate Authority but the said appeal was dismissed on March 8, 2006. Insofar as the other two delinquents are concerned, their departmental appeals were partly allowed. The punishment of removal awarded to R.K. Kapdi was modified to that of compulsory retirement with effect from April 23, 2004 by the Appellate Authority while the punishment awarded to P.N. Vinod was modified to reduction to lower stage of pay by five stages with cumulative effect. 4

Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice. The mere statement that it is disproportionate would not suffice."

14. Secondly, the Tribunal failed to notice that respondent was holding an important position as Land Reforms Officer during the relevant period having been conferred with various powers and duties under the Regulations. As a Land 11 Reforms Officer, the respondent possessed the official authority for grant of occupancy rights under the Regulations. The co- delinquents were only his subordinates and they carried out his instructions. In the facts and circumstances, therefore, the respondent and the two co-delinquents cannot be said to have been similarly placed.

We are afraid Tata Engineering & Locomotive Co. Ltd.1 has no application to the facts of the present case.

18. The result is that appeal is allowed, the order of the High Court dated December 1, 2008 and that of the Tribunal dated June 22, 2007 are set aside. The parties shall bear their own costs.

..................................J. (R.V. Raveendran) .....................................J (R. M. Lodha) New Delhi April 28, 2010.
Vijender Kumar @ Vijay vs State Of Delhi

2. Yogesh, the deceased was employed as a Helper in a bus owned by the appellant's father. He was suspected of misappropriating a part of the fare that was being collected by him from passengers. On the 9th of April, 2002, when the bus was parked at the Karampura bus terminal, Delhi, the appellant questioned the deceased to find out if a part of the fare had been withheld by him, but the deceased answered in the negative. The appellant, however, remained unconvinced. He, therefore, subjected the deceased to a personal search which resulted in the recovery of an amount of Rs.100/- from his person. The appellant got furious and started beating the deceased. The deceased protested whereupon the appellant brought a knife from the boot of his scooter parked nearby and caused one injury with the knife in the abdomen of the deceased. The bus crew and the passengers advised the appellant to remove the deceased, who was then in a critical condition, to the hospital. The appellant thereupon assisted by one, Kanhaiya took the injured on a two-wheeler to a private clinic but he was advised to take him to a hospital. The appellant, accordingly, took the injured to the ESI Hospital and got him admitted at that place. The appellant also informed the attending doctor that he had found the injured lying unconscious on the roadside and as a good Samaritan had brought him to the hospital after having picked him from there. The Duty Constable at the ESI Hospital informed the police station regarding the admission of the injured on which Sub Inspector D.P. Kajala reached the hospital and found that the injured was unfit to make a statement. A case under Section 307 of the IPC came to be registered against unknown persons. Yogesh died later that day in the ESI Hospital and the case was modified to one under Section 302 of the IPC. The trial court found that all the eye witnesses had not supported the prosecution but relying on the circumstantial evidence convicted the accused for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life. An appeal taken to the High Court was also dismissed.

3. The present appeal by way of special leave is limited to the nature of the offence only on the understanding that as per the case of the appellant the case would fall under Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC.

A perusal of the provision would reveal that four conditions must be satisfied to bring the matter within Exception 4:

7. We, accordingly, dismiss the appeal.
Admin.Union Territory Of D.&N.Haveli; vs Gulabhia M.Lad

2. The question that calls to be determined in this appeal by special leave is : on consideration of the report of the Inquiring Authority wherein misconduct of the respondent has been proved and after following the prescribed procedure, the Disciplinary Authority ordered his removal from service and the departmental appeal against that order has been dismissed by the Appellate Authority, whether Central Administrative Tribunal was justified, on the facts found, in interfering with the order of punishment on the ground that co-delinquents were awarded lesser punishment in departmental appeals and directing the appellant to reconsider the whole matter and give the respondent the same treatment which has been meted out to the co-delinquents.

5. The respondent filed the departmental appeal against the order of punishment dated April 23, 2004 before the Appellate Authority but the said appeal was dismissed on March 8, 2006. Insofar as the other two delinquents are concerned, their departmental appeals were partly allowed. The punishment of removal awarded to R.K. Kapdi was modified to that of compulsory retirement with effect from April 23, 2004 by the Appellate Authority while the punishment awarded to P.N. Vinod was modified to reduction to lower stage of pay by five stages with cumulative effect. 4

Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice. The mere statement that it is disproportionate would not suffice."

14. Secondly, the Tribunal failed to notice that respondent was holding an important position as Land Reforms Officer during the relevant period having been conferred with various powers and duties under the Regulations. As a Land 11 Reforms Officer, the respondent possessed the official authority for grant of occupancy rights under the Regulations. The co- delinquents were only his subordinates and they carried out his instructions. In the facts and circumstances, therefore, the respondent and the two co-delinquents cannot be said to have been similarly placed.

We are afraid Tata Engineering & Locomotive Co. Ltd.1 has no application to the facts of the present case.

18. The result is that appeal is allowed, the order of the High Court dated December 1, 2008 and that of the Tribunal dated June 22, 2007 are set aside. The parties shall bear their own costs.

..................................J. (R.V. Raveendran) .....................................J (R. M. Lodha) New Delhi April 28, 2010.
Baij Nath Sah vs State Of Bihar

Four persons in all Parwati Devi, Prabhunath Sah, Baij Nath Sah, the appellant herein, and one Surajdeo Misssir were brought to trial for an offence under Sec.366- A of the Indian Penal Code for having kidnapped Suman Kumari the minor daughter of Arjun Prasad on 24th June, 1984 from her home. The fourth accused i.e. Surajdeo Missir died during the course of the trial. The Trial Court by its judgment dated 5th September, 1991, convicted the accused for the aforesaid offence and sentenced them to five years rigorous imprisonment. An appeal was thereafter taken to the Patna High Court and the learned single Judge altered the conviction from one under Sec.366-A to Sec.363 of the IPC, released Parvati Devi on the basis of the sentence already undergone and reduced the sentence of the appellants Baij Nath Sah and Prabhunath Sah, to one year's R.I. -2- A special leave petition was subsequently filed in this Court by Baij Nath Sah - the appellant and his brother Prabhunath Sah but as the latter did not surrender to custody, his special leave petition was dismissed. We are told that he has undergone the sentence as of now.

We accordingly allow the appeal and set aside the judgment impugned. The appellant is acquitted. -4-

The appellant is on bail. His bail bonds shall stand discharged.
B.T.Krishnappa vs D.M.,United Insurace Co.Ltd.& Anr

4.Pursuant thereto show cause notices were issued to the respondents on 17.2.2010 and service was complete.

5.The material facts are that appellant was working as a mason and was aged 50 years at the time of accident. On the fateful day of 08.01.2006, at about 4.30 pm, the appellant was crossing the road 2 near Deepa Nursing Home, K.R. Puram, when a motorcycle, with the registered number plate KA-05- EW-1108 hit him. The motorcycle was being driven by the second respondent (to be known as `R2' hereinafter) at the time of the accident. As a result of the accident, the appellant sustained bone fractures as well as head and other injuries all over the body. He was taken to the Deepa Nursing Home, Bangalore where he received first aid. He was then shifted to Bowring and Lady Curzon Hospital, Bangalore (to be known as `Hospital' hereinafter) the same day where he was admitted and received treatment as an inpatient till 21.01.2006. He continued with the follow up treatments for about six months after his discharge.

7.By the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (to be known as `Tribunal' hereinafter), the 3 appellant was awarded a compensation of Rs.1,55,000/- with interest @ 7.5%. R1 was made liable to pay the compensation to the appellant.

17.Long expectation of life is connected with earning capacity. If earning capacity is reduced, which is the case in the present situation, that impacts life expectancy as well.
Bhanumati Etc. Etc vs State Of U.P.Tr.Prinl.Sec.& Ors

2.In the course of argument before this Court factual controversies were not very much raised. The appeals were mostly argued on the legality of the amendment from various angles which will be considered hereinabelow.

and "Upadhyaksha" wherever occurring including the marginal headings and Schedules, shall be omitted."

22. However, under the strong pressure of criticism from various members, the Assembly rather grudgingly accepted that an article concerning the Panchayat should be included in the Directive Principles. On 22nd November, 1948, K. Santhanam moved the official amendment and that is how Article 40, in its present form, came into existence. The amendment was accepted by Dr. Ambedkar.

84.Such a provision is wholly compatible and consistent with the rejuvenated Panchayat contemplated in Part IX of the Constitution and is not at all inconsistent with the same.

111.For the reasons aforesaid this Court upholds the Constitutional validity of the U.P. Panchayat Laws (Amendment) Act, 2007 (U.P. Act 44 of 2007) and the appeals are dismissed. The judgment of the Hon'ble High Court is upheld and affirmed. All interim orders are vacated. There shall be no order as to costs.

.....................J. (G.S. SINGHVI) .....................J. (ASOK KUMAR GANGULY) New Delhi May 4, 2010 57 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO(s).4135-4152 OF 2010 (arising out of SLP(C)No(s).3802-3819/2009) BHANUMATI ETC. ETC. ...Appellant(s) VERSUS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND OTHERS ...Respondent(s) WITH C.A. NO(s).4153 OF 2010 @ SLP(C) NO.4320 of 2009 C.A. NO(s).4154-4155 OF 2010 @ SLP(C) NO.4322-4323 of 2009 C.A. NO(s).4156-57 OF 2010 @ SLP(C) NO.4515-4516 of 2009 C.A. NO(s).4158 OF 2010 @ SLP(C) NO. 4517 of 2009 C.A. NO(s).4159-4164 OF 2010 @ SLP(C) NO.4554-4559 of 2009 C.A. NO(s).4165 OF 2010 @ SLP(C) NO. 4941 of 2009 C.A. NO(s).4166 OF 2010 @ SLP(C) NO. 4960 of 2009 C.A. NO(s).4167 OF 2010 @ SLP(C) NO. 4964 of 2009 C.A. NO(s).4168 OF 2010 @ SLP(C) NO. 5481 of 2009 C.A. NO(s).4169 OF 2010 @ SLP(C) NO. 5439 of 2009 C.A. NO(s).4170 OF 2010 @ SLP(C) NO. 5902 of 2009 C.A. NO(s).4171 OF 2010 @ SLP(C) NO. 9180 of 2009 C.A. NO(s).4172 OF 2010 @ SLP(C) NO. 9343 of 2009 C.A. NO(s).4173 OF 2010 @ SLP(C) NO. 9352 of 2009 C.A. NO(s).4174-75 OF 2010 @ SLP(C)NO. 7225-7226 of 2009 C.A. NO(s).4176 OF 2010 @ SLP(C) NO. 7651 of 2009 C.A. NO(s).4177 OF 2010 @ SLP(C) NO. 10069 of 2009 C.A. NO(s).4178 OF 2010 @ SLP(C) NO. 10543 of 2009 O R D E R All applications for intervention/impleadment are allowed.

Leave granted.

The appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs. The detailed order follows.
Mr. N.Rajanna & Ors vs State Of Karnataka & Ors

4. The project of respondent No.3 was considered in 10th, 13th and 15th meetings of the State High Level Clearance Committee (for short, `the 3 Committee'). After seeking some clarifications from respondent No.3, the Committee recommended approval of the project. The State Government accepted the recommendations of the Committee and issued order dated 18.11.2008 for approval of the project of respondent No.3 subject to certain conditions. While making recommendations in favour of respondent No.3, the Committee took note of letter dated 28.4.2008 sent by Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, wherein he made a mention of the pendency of case for grant of occupancy right. This is evinced from the following extract of order dated 18.11.2008:

5. After 8 days, the State Government revised its decision and issued order dated 26.11.2008 for withdrawal of the approval accorded to the project of respondent No.3 on the ground of pendency of the case before the competent authority. This action of the State Government was ratified by the Committee in its meeting held on 28.1.2009.

9. Respondent No.3 did not feel satisfied with the directions given by the learned Single Judge and challenged the order passed by him in Writ Appeal No. 1295/2009. By the impugned judgment, the Division Bench allowed the writ appeal, quashed order dated 26.11.2008 and directed the State Government to proceed on the basis of approval granted by it on 18.11.2008.

12. Although, the issue relating to grant of occupancy right over the land comprised in survey Nos.1 to 104 of Village Chalamakunte is yet to be decided by the competent authority, it cannot be said that the appellants do not have the locus to be heard in the proceedings which may result in acquisition of the land. If ultimately the competent authority accepts the claim of the appellants for grant of occupancy rights and in the meanwhile the land is utilized by respondent No.3, the determination made by the competent authority will become illusory for them.

14. In the result, the appeals are allowed. The impugned judgment is set aside and the matter is remitted to the High Court for deciding the appeal of respondent No.3 afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to the 1 parties. Keeping in view the nature of the case, we request the High Court to dispose of the appeal as early as possible but latest within two months from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order.
D.G., All India Radio & Anr vs Puranam Purushotham Sastry

2. The claim of the respondent-writ petitioner was that in the light of his expertise in the field of Carnatic vocal music, he was not required to appear in the audition. Reliance ha been placed on the experience certificate dated 20th October, 1971, issued on the directions of the Director General, All India Radio, which reads as under:

6. The appeal is disposed of with the above directions.

..................J [HARJIT SINGH BEDI] ..................J [C.K. PRASAD] NEW DELHI MAY 04, 2010.
R.S.R.T.C. & Ors vs Deen Dayal Sharma

The jurisdiction of civil court to order reinstatement of the respondent and grant of financial benefits of service to him has been questioned in this appeal.

2. The respondent was appointed as conductor by the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation - (for short, `appellants') on October 11, 1982. On January 17, 1983, while the respondent was on duty on Badi Chopad - Amer route, a surprise inspection was done and six passengers were found travelling in the bus without tickets. The respondent was dismissed from service vide order dated January 24, 1983. The respondent preferred departmental appeal against the order of dismissal dated January 24, 1983 but the said appeal was dismissed on September 5, 1985. He preferred review before the reviewing authority which too was dismissed on April 13, 1987. The respondent then filed a civil suit in the Court of Additional Munsif and Judicial Magistrate No.2, Jaipur City, Jaipur against the appellants praying therein that the order of dismissal dated January 24, 1983 be declared unlawful, illegal, void and ineffective being contrary to the Standing Orders as no departmental enquiry was held and he be held to be entitled to all benefits as if he continued in service.

4. The Trial Judge after recording the evidence of the respondent, heard parties and overruled the objection raised by 2 the appellants about the jurisdiction of the civil court and vide judgement and decree dated March 6, 1991 declared the order of dismissal dated January 24, 1983 illegal and ordered reinstatement of respondent and other financial benefits to him.

6. The second appeal preferred by the appellants before the High Court was dismissed on November 7, 2005 holding that concurrent finding of facts by the courts below warranted no interference. It is from this order that present appeal by special leave arises.

13. We shall first notice the case set up by the respondent in the plaint. It was averred :

15. In the result, appeal is allowed and impugned order of the High Court and judgements of the courts below are set aside. No order as to costs.

.............................J (R. V. Raveendran) .............................J (R. M. Lodha) New Delhi May 5, 2010.
Md. Ashif & Ors vs State Of Bihar & Ors

3. The appellants in these appeals were in June 1985 appointed as Voluntary Health Workers in State run dispensaries within the district of Darbhanga in the State of Bihar. In lieu of their services they were paid a monthly honorarium of Rs.50/- only. Less than five months after their initial appointment they were absorbed as Primary Health Workers by the Chief Medical Officer which carried a pay scale of Rs.535-765. It is not in dispute that the appellants continued to work for nearly 15 years as Primary Health Workers, till their services were terminated by an order dated 20th February, 2001 on the ground that their promotion/absorption as Primary Health Workers was illegal and contrary to the rules. The termination, it appears, came pursuant to an enquiry regarding procedure followed in the making of the appointments to class III posts. The enquiry revealed that the appointments were in breach of 3 circular/instructions dated 3rd December, 1980 issued by the Chief Secretary of the State of Bihar pointing out that appointment to Class-3 posts had been made in violation of procedure laid down by the State Government in terms of two circulars dated 10th July, 1980 and 26th September, 1980. The Government, therefore, directed all the Heads of the Departments, Divisional Commissioners and the District Magistrates to review the system and to send their reports to ensure that action for filling up of the vacant posts is taken in accordance with the prescribed procedure. It was further directed that appointments made in violation of the prescribed procedure would not only call for action against those who make such appointments but render the appointments liable to be cancelled.

12. We see no reason to interfere with the order of Division Bench of the High Court. These appeals accordingly fail and are hereby dismissed. No costs.
Madras Cements Ltd vs Commr.Of Central Excise

2. The Appellant, M/s Madras Cements Ltd., Alathiyur, hereinafter referred to as `the Assessee' is the holder of Central Excise Registration No.1/Cement/97 and is engaged in the manufacture of cement and clinker coming within the ambit of Chapter 25 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, hereinafter referred to as `CETA, 1985'.

6. The matter was then taken in appeal before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Chennai, by way of Appeal No.E/108/04/MAS on 20th January, 2004, which upheld the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). Aggrieved by the order of CESTAT, the Appellant filed the present Appeals before this Court.

10. Mr. Banerjee urged that the impugned judgment of the Tribunal ought not, therefore, to be interfered with and the appeals of Madras Cements Ltd. were liable to be dismissed.

14. We are not, therefore, inclined to interfere with the orders of the Tribunal and the Appeals are accordingly, dismissed.

15. There will be no orders as to costs.