L-NLProc/TathyaNyaya-and-FactLegalLlama-NyayaScrape-Datasets huggingface dataset:
Harbhajan Singh & Anr vs State Of Punjab & Anr

3. Appellants and one Sarabjit Singh used to live together. Sarabjit Singh is the brother of the appellant no. 2. He used to follow the deceased Rajni despite protests made by her. He gave a proposal of marriage to her which was not accepted. Appellants also asked her to marry Sarabjit, but she refused. She was threatened of being blackmailed stating that some obscene photographs of hers would be shown to others. On 12 th March 2005 Sarabjit Singh threw some obscene photographs of the deceased at her house as well as at the house of her paternal uncle - Kamaljeet. He telephoned the deceased that her father and uncle must have received the gift sent by him. She thereafter committed suicide by consuming `sulphos' tablets.

5. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge passed the said order dated 11th September 2006 summoning the appellants as additional accused in the said case, stating:

Whether such power can be exercised only if the Court is satisfied that the accused summoned in all likelihood would be convicted?"

15. Keeping in view the materials available on record as also the nature of the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge we are of the opinion that no interference with the impugned judgment is called for in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.

16. For the reasons aforementioned, the appeal is dismissed. 11

July 29, 2009
M.Yogendra & Ors vs Leelamma N. & Ors

Appellants herein filed a suit for partition against Leelamma, Kamalamma and Dinesh for partition claiming 1/3rd share in the suit property. Inter alia, on the premise that some of the joint family properties were not included therein Neelamma, Kamalamma and Dinesh filed another suit for partition. Before the learned trial court, where both the suits were heard together, the appellants herein raised a contention that Yashodamma was not married to K Doddananjundaiah. A specific issue was framed. The learned trial court, however, principally relying on or on the basis of the admission made by Neelamma and Kamalamma that Dinesh was their brother and marriage had taken place between their father and Yashodamma and also some other documents including birth certificate and a settlement deed came to the conclusion that Yashodamma was validly and legally married to K Doddanandjundaiah.

For the aforementioned reasons, we are of the opinion that the learned trial judge as also of the High Court were not correct in opining that Dinesh would be a coparcener and the appellants would inherit only 1/10th share in the said properties. The shares of the plaintiffs would be 1/3rd therein.

These appeals are allowed but in the circumstances with no costs.

.......................J [S.B. SINHA] .......................J [DEEPAK VERMA] NEW DELHI JULY 29, 2009.
M/S. Steel Authority Of India Ltd vs S.U.T.N.I. Sangam & Ors

On the requisition of M/s. Steel Authority of India Ltd. (hereinafter called and referred to for the sake of brevity as the `SAIL') for establishment of a steel plant at Salem commonly known as Salem Steel Plant, 3651 acres of land was acquired wherefor a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called and referred to for the sake of brevity as `the Act') was issued in the year 1964 and a declaration under Section 6 was published in 1969.

Some of the land owners, however, filed applications for reference although they had not accepted the amount of compensation with protest which was rejected by the Land Acquisition Officer. Some of the awardees filed their applications for making reference after the period prescribed therefor. Those applications were also rejected.

In the said writ proceedings, the State Government filed a counter affidavit, inter alia, contending that in most of the cases the awardees and the 5 interested persons were served with notices under Section 12 (2) of the Act who were present during the land acquisition proceedings. It is furthermore averred that the awardees in any view of the matter had knowledge thereabout and, thus, applications of those awardees who had accepted amounts of compensation under protest and filed requisite applications for reference, the matters at their instance had been referred to the Civil Court in terms of Section 18(2) of the Act. Indisputably, the appellant herein was not initially impleaded in the said writ petition. On or about 19.11.1984, it filed an application for impleading itself in the said writ petition which was allowed. By a judgment and order dated 6.3.1992, a learned Single Judge of the said Court allowed the said writ application directing that a mere protest or expression of dissatisfaction of the award without there being anything in writing would be sufficient for the concerned authorities to refer the matters to the Civil Court. On the said premise, the Collector was directed to complete the process of reference within a period of one year therefrom.

Aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said judgment and order dated 6.3.1992, intra court appeals were preferred both by the State Government as also by the Appellant. By reason of the impugned judgment, the writ appeal was dismissed, opining :

Awards were passed on 30.6.1988. The land owners, while the awards were made fixing market value of the land at Rs.1,61,538/ per hectare and on being communicated thereabout, made the following statement before the Land Acquisition Collector :

672)."

For the reasons aforementioned, the appeal preferred by M/s Steel Authority of India Ltd. is allowed with no order as to costs and the appeals filed by the Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Housing Board are dismissed with costs. Counsel's fee assessed at Rs. 25,000/- each.
Priya Vasant Kalgutkar vs Murad Shaikh & Ors

2. Appellant is a young girl. She met with an accident on or about 20.9.1999 while she was aged only 9 years. In the said accident she suffered the following injuries, as stated in the application filed on her behalf before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal :

An amount of Rs.3,00,000/- was claimed by her by way of compensation in the claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter called and referred to for the sake of brevity as `the Act'). The Tribunal, however, having regard to the evidences brought on record, opining that permanent disability suffered by her would be 10%, a sum of Rs.40,000/-

awarded on the said ground. The total amount of compensation determined was a sum of Rs.72,785/- details of which are as under :

10. The appeal is dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, however, there shall be no order as to costs.

July 29, 2009
M/S. Qazi Noorul H.H.H. Petrol Pump &Anr vs Dy. Director, E.S.I. Corporation

The appellant is running a petrol pump (public retail outlet) for dispensing petrol/diesel. He filed the aforesaid Writ Petition No. 53564 of 2002 in the High Court of Allahabad challenging an order dated 17th October, 2002 issued by the Deputy Director, Employees State Insurance Corporation, Regional Office, Kanpur directing the appellant to make contribution under the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short 'the Act') from August, 1993 to May, -2- 2000 and interest on the aforesaid amount failing which recovery shall be issued under Sections 45-C and 45-G of the Act.

The appeal is dismissed in terms of the Reportable signed order. No costs.

Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. No costs. However, we reduce the rate of interest to 10% on the principal amount.
M/S. Qazi Noorul H.H.H. Petrol Pump ... vs Dy. Director, E.S.I. Corporation

The appellant is running a petrol pump (public retail outlet) for dispensing petrol/diesel. He filed the aforesaid Writ Petition No. 53564 of 2002 in the High Court of Allahabad challenging an order dated 17th October, 2002 issued by the Deputy Director, Employees State Insurance Corporation, Regional Office, Kanpur directing the appellant to make contribution under the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short 'the Act') from August, 1993 to May, -2- 2000 and interest on the aforesaid amount failing which recovery shall be issued under Sections 45-C and 45-G of the Act.

The appeal is dismissed in terms of the Reportable signed order. No costs.

Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. No costs. However, we reduce the rate of interest to 10% on the principal amount.
Dkshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam & Ors vs Bachan Singh

4. The respondents herein has joined the services of the appellant as Laboratory Attendant in work-charge capacity on 16.5.1963 and continued to perform his duties on work-charge basis on different posts until he was regularized as Head Mistry w.e.f. 14.10.1981. The respondent was a member of the Employees Provident Fund Scheme (for short `EPF Scheme'). During the period he remained a work-charge employee, the respondent had attained the age of superannuation and retired from the service on 28.2.2001. The appellants computed respondent's pensionary benefits by taking into account only the services rendered by him on regular basis and he was denied benefits of the services rendered by him w.e.f. 16.5.1963 to 13.10.1981 on work- charge basis.

ii) The option once exercised will be final and not to be allowed to be changed in any circumstances. In case option is not given within the stipulated period of three months, it will be presumed that he/she intends to continue to be a member of EPF.

3. Similarly, the above benefit will also be available to the pensioners/recipients of family pension of the Board on the same terms and conditions with the exception that they will have to deposit the amount contributed by the Board as Employee's contribution towards EPF alongwith interest thereon, in lumpsum. The pensioners/recipients of family pension will have to give an Affidavit to the fact that he/she will not claim any interest on the arrear of pensionary benefits which become payable due to adoption of the State Govt. circular. The pensioners/recipient of family pension will submit their option within 3 months from the date of issue of this circular, for availing pensionary benefits, to the Head of the office last attended. The option once exercised will be final. In case, option is not given within the stipulated period of 3 months, it will be presumed that he/she intends to continue to be a member of EPF.

e) There is demand from That employer's/ the Workers Union that the employee's contribution recovery of EPF amount alongwith interest alongwith the interest thereon may be should be made in refunded to the Board in instalments instead of suitable instalments at lumpsum on the pattern of the employee's option BBMB. within his remaming period of service, subject to maximum of 24 monthly instalments. In case of those, who have already retired the employee's contribution alongwith interest thereon will be refunded to the Board in lumpsum.

pensionable establishment;

and

(iii) ..................".

27. In our considered opinion, the view taken by the Division Bench of the High Court in the impugned judgment is indeed a rational, just and fair view and no interference is called for.

28. These appeals are devoid of any merit and are accordingly dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

July 30, 2009
State Of Punjab & Anr vs Mohammed Iqbal Bhatti

Respondent was working as Block Development and Panchayat Officer. A First Information Report was lodged against him on or about 2 6.9.2001 under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Upon completion of investigation, the Vigilance Department sought for sanction from the competent authority so as to enable it to prosecute the respondent. By an order dated 15.12.2002, grant of such sanction was refused. The matter, however, was placed before the competent authority once again and on or about 14.9.2004 sanction to prosecute the respondent was granted. Questioning the legality and/or validity of the said order, the respondent filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana.

14. The First Information Report was lodged in 2001. The proceeding for grant of sanction was initiated in that year. Several queries were made to the Vigilance Department. Such queries had to be made as the respondent 8 herein made a representation that he had been falsely implicated at the instance of some of the officers of the Vigilance Department who had set up a tout therefor.

24. For the reasons aforementioned, there is no merit in this appeal which is dismissed accordingly. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

July 31, 2009
Mukesh Kumar Agrawal vs State Of U.P.& Ors

3. Appellant was a dealer in High Speed Diesel Oil and Light Diesel Oil. Business in the said commodity is governed by the U.P. High Speed Diesel Oil and Light Diesel Oil (Maintenance of Supplies and Distribution) Order, 1981 (for short, "1981 Order"). The said 1981 Order has been framed in terms of Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Appellant was granted a licence for dealing in the said commodities in terms of the said 1981 Order on or about 1.4.1990, which was renewed till 31.3.2010. Indisputably, on the premise that he had violated the terms and conditions of the said licence, the Licensing Authority by reason of an order dated 22.6.2002 cancelled the said licence.

Appellant preferred a writ petition thereagainst in the High court. By an interim order dated 9.7.2002, the operation of the order dated 22.6.2002 was stayed. During pendency of the said writ petition, the order of cancellation of licence was confirmed by the District Magistrate on 28.3.2003. Another writ petition came to be filed by the appellant on 7.4.2003 in the High Court and the said order dated 28.3.2003 passed by the District Magistrate was also stayed.

The District Supply Officer by his order dated 9.1.2008 cancelled the licence of the appellant. Questioning the said order, appellant filed a writ petition inter alia on the premise that the allegations contained in the show cause notice were different from those made in the FIR insofar as the notice did not specify that any sale through unauthorized persons had taken place.

We also intend to emphasize that the distinction between a malice of fact and malice in law must be borne out from records; whereas in a case involving malice in law which if established may lead to an inference that the statutory authorities had acted without jurisdiction while exercising its jurisdiction, malice of fact must be pleaded and proved. [See Swaran Singh Chand v. Punjab State Electricity Board 2009 (7) SCALE 622)] 8

13. For the aforementioned reasons, the appeal is dismissed with costs. Counsel's fee assessed at Rs.10,000/-.

...J. [Cyriac Joseph] New Delhi;

July 31 , 2009
Girishbhai Dahyabhai Shah vs C.C.Jani & Anr

There is no dispute that the sample of the curd, in respect of which the complaint was filed, was collected on 8th April, 1988, or that the report of the Public Analyst, -2- whereupon the appellant applied for examination of the second sample on the basis of Section 13(2), was filed on 4th May, 1988, but was made available to the appellant only on 17th July, 1989, i.e. 15 months after the samples had been collected. On 10th November, 1989, the petitioner had prayed for examination of the second sample. The second sample was ultimately sent to the Central Food Laboratory on 6th December, 1989, and the report was received on 26th December, 1989.

In that view of the matter, we are unable to sustain the judgment of the High Court impugned in this appeal and we also see no reason to continue with the proceedings which have lasted for 28 years in the absence of any valid and reliable report with regard to the second sample.

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The order passed by the High Court is set aside and the proceeding, being Crl.Complaint No.58 of 1989, pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad, is quashed.

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No(s).7555/2008 (From the judgement and order dated 21/08/2008 in CRLMA No. 15068/2007 of The HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD) GIRISHBHAI DAHYABHAI SHAH Petitioner(s) VERSUS C.C.JANI & ANR. Respondent(s) (With appln(s) for stay and office report )) Date: 31/07/2009 This Petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM :
Challamma vs Tilaga & Ors

1. K.T. Subramanya (the deceased) was employed with Karnataka Power Corporation (for short, "KPC") at Linganamakki. He took four life insurance policies from Life Insurance Corporation of India being dated 13.1.1987, 16.2.1987, 31.3.1987, and 3.6.1988. Indisputably, therein he nominated Challamma, his mother as the beneficiary thereof. The first respondent is said to have entered into a wedlock with the deceased on 3.12.1984. Subramanya died on 22.9.1988. 2

3. A large number of witnesses being P.Ws. 1 to 5, namely, Tilaga, first respondent herein (P.W.1), Muniyamma, the mother of respondent no.1 (P.W.2), Puttappa, father of the respondent No.1 (P.W.3), Y.M. Bangera, Administrative Officer, L.I.C. of India, Sagar (P.W.4) and Subba Rao B.R., the Personnel Officer of the K.P.C. (P.W.5) were examined by the respondents in support of their contention that the first respondent was married to the deceased.. A large number of documents including photographs showing performance of marriage ceremony were also filed. Inter alia on a finding that the first respondent and the deceased having been residing in a quarter together for a period of 3 3 years, 9 months and 19 days and furthermore having arrived at a finding of fact that the society accepted them as husband and wife, the learned trial judge held that a presumption of valid marriage should be drawn and on the basis thereof the application for grant of succession certificate filed by the respondents herein was allowed.

4. Appellant, aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said judgment and order of the learned Civil Judge, preferred an appeal thereagainst in the court of District Judge, Shimoga which was marked as Misc. Appeal No. 52 of 1995. The said appeal was eventually transferred to the Court of Additional District Judge. By reason of a judgment and order dated 1.3.2004, the learned First Appellate Court opined that the appellant was entitled to 1/4th share in the estate of the deceased while upholding the judgment and order of the learned trial judge that the marriage by and between the deceased and the first respondent was valid and the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were their sons.

5. Still not satisfied, the appellant preferred Civil Revision Petition No. 1115 of 2004 before the High Court which by reason of the impugned judgment has been dismissed.

12. In view of the fact that the appellant was one of the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased Subramanya, there cannot be any doubt whatsoever that she had been rightly held to be entitled to 1/4th share in the estate of the deceased Subramanya.

13. For the aforementioned reasons, the appeal is dismissed with costs. Counsel's fee assessed at Rs.5,000/-.

July 31, 2009
Rajendra Singh vs State Of U.P.& Ors

2. The Writ Petitioner and Respondent No. 5 are in the revenue service of the State of Uttar Pradesh. Both of them are Sub-Registrar. By an Office Order dated July 31, 2007 issued by I.G. Registration, Writ Petitioner, working as Sub-Registrar, Ghaziabad has been transferred to Hapur-II while Respondent No. 5, working as Sub-Registrar, Hapur-II has been transferred to Ghaziabad-IV. The transfer order dated July 31, 2007 came to be challenged by the Writ Petitioner before the High Court of Allahabad, Bench Lucknow. While challenging the legality of the transfer order, Writ Petitioner set up the grounds that he joined as Sub-Registrar, Ghaziabad, Sadar-IV only a month back; that the transfer order has been issued on the complaint of one Radhey Lal, Sanyojak Dalit Morcha Sangharsh Samiti, Lucknow and that the order of transfer was arbitrary, stigmatic and suffers from non-application of mind. The Writ Petitioner also set up the case that Respondent No. 5, who has been 2 transferred in his place as Sub-Registrar, Ghaziabad-IV did not have good service record; that there was vigilance enquiry pending against Respondent No. 5 on charges of corruption and that his service record bears adverse entry in the year 2005.

11. We may also observe that transfer of the Writ Petitioner from Ghaziabad-IV to Hapur-II cannot be said to be stigmatic and any observation made in the impugned order about the work and conduct of the Writ Petitioner shall not be read adversely by the authorities against the Writ Petitioner.

12. Consequently, the order dated August 22, 2007 passed by the High Court quashing the transfer of Respondent No. 5 from Hapur-II to Ghaziabad-IV is set aside. Appeal of Rajendra Singh is allowed while appeal of Karvendra Singh 8 stands dismissed with clarification as indicated above. The parties shall bear their own costs.

........................J (Tarun Chatterjee) ........................J (R. M. Lodha) New Delhi July 31, 2009.
Vasudev Shenoy vs Kshemavathy & Ors

The appellant herein is the decree holder arising out of civil suit No. O.S. 83/1997. Consequent to the decree 19 cents, of land belonging to the respondents herein was purchased by the appellant in a Court auction on 4th April, 2000. The possession of the property was delivered to the appellant on 30th January, 2001 by the Court officials with Police help as the respondents had obstructed the delivery. The respondents, however, on the very next day i.e. 31st January, 2001 re-possessed themselves of the property by breaking open the locks.

The appeal is allowed in the above terms.

..................J. (J.M. PANCHAL) New Delhi, July 31, 2009.
State Of Punjab & Anr vs Surjit Singh & Ors

Respondents herein were appointed in different capacities by the Public Health Department of the State of Punjab. They were admittedly appointed as daily wager. Only some of them were appointed after their names were requisitioned from the Employment Exchange. No recruitment process was followed. Constitutional norm of equality contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India had not been adhered to. They were paid wages in terms of the offer of appointment made to them. Their names were being maintained in the Muster Roll.

Emphasis supplied.

We, therefore, are of the opinion that the interest of justice would be subserved if the State is directed to examine the cases of the respondents herein by appointing an Expert Committee as to whether the principles of law laid down herein, viz., as to whether the respondents satisfy the factors for invocation of the decision in Charanjit Singh (supra) in its entirety including the question of appointment in terms of the recruitment rules have been followed. It has a positive concept.

However, as writ petition No.14045 of 2001 was dismissed as it had become infructuous, the special leave petition filed thereagainst was not maintainable. Civil Appeal No.7466 of 2003 is, therefore, dismissed with 36 costs payable by the State to the respondent. In other cases, the appeals are allowed without any direction to pay costs.

August 4, 2009