L-NLProc/TathyaNyaya-and-FactLegalLlama-NyayaScrape-Datasets huggingface dataset:
Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board vs Ccl Products (India) Ltd.

2 This appeal arises from a judgment of the National Green Tribunal 1 at its Southern Zone Bench at Chennai dated 16 August 2016. The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the respondent in part and held that the invocation of the bank guarantees furnished to the appellant at the behest of the respondent was unwarranted and that the amount should be refunded to the respondent. 3 Since reliefs in terms of the other prayers were declined by the Tribunal, the issue which falls for consideration is whether the Tribunal was justified in interfering with the invocation of three bank guarantees issued to the appellant and 1 “Tribunal” 2 in directing the appellant to refund the amounts covered by them to the respondent.

5 Complaints were received by the appellant and by the District Collector, Guntur in regard to the environmental pollution caused by the appellant. A notice to show cause was issued by the appellant to the respondent on 2 August 2011. A Task Force Committee was constituted by the appellant which, after hearing the respondent, issued directions to it on 12 August 2011. Based on the recommendations of the Task Force Committee, the following directions were issued to the respondent on 26 August 2011:

6 In addition, the appellant directed the respondent to furnish three bank guarantees: two in the amount of Rs 10,00,000 each and the third in the amount of Rs 5,00,000 to secure compliance with the conditions specified in Part A, Part B and Part C above in regard to the functioning of the respondent. 7 On 6 September 2011, three bank guarantees executed by the State Bank of India were furnished to the appellant. The bank guarantee in the amount of Rs 5,00,000 was in order to secure compliance with the conditions stipulated in the consent for the establishment and operation of the respondent in terms of the applicable environmental standards. The bank guarantee covered Part C of the directions that were issued on 26 August 2011 which were embedded in the guarantee. The guarantee contained the following stipulation:

8 The second bank guarantee covered Part B of the stipulation which the Task Force Committee had required the respondent to fulfill on 26 August 2011. The bank guarantee contained the following stipulations:

9 The third bank guarantee in the amount of Rs 10,00,000 covered Part A of the stipulations which the Task Force Committee had required the respondent to fulfill on 26 August 2011.

23 The invocation of the bank guarantees was the subject matter of the present appeal. We allow the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment and order of the Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs. 24 Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
The State Of Haryana vs Sunder Lal

3. The respondent herein filed a writ petition in the year 2015 in the 2 High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh. He has set up the case that he owned the land measuring two Kanal. The same was acquired by the issuance of Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the award was also passed. Compensation has been obtained. However, the acquisition has lapsed as per provisions contained in Section 24(2) of the Right of Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short, ‘the Act of 2013’), as the possession has not been taken. He has constructed residential houses and shops.

Thereby, it is seen that the appellant is not disabled to proceed with the continuation of the educational institution which it seeks to establish. It is then contended that an opportunity may be given to the appellant to make a representation to the State Government. We find that it is not necessary for us to give any such liberty since acquisition process has already been completed.” 9

22. It is apparent that acquisition has attained finality, the award was passed, compensation was collected and possession was taken long back in the year 2003. Resultantly, we find the impugned judgment and order to be unsustainable, the same is hereby set aside. The appeal is allowed. No order as to costs.

New Delhi;
Ram Gopal vs C.B.I. Dehradun

3. The Central Bureau of Investigation registered an F.I.R. on 12.04.1994 based on the statement of the Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India, Ghaziabad with regard to the opening of a fictitious Bank account on 13.07.1992 in the name of one Raj Kumar. Soon thereafter by separate forged credit entries between the period 23.07.1992 to 31.10.1992, deposit of Rs.3,22,056.00 was made in the account. Subsequently on different dates a sum of Rs.3,22,000.00 was withdrawn by seventeen cheques leaving a balance of Rs.322.85. Originally two clerks of the Bank, Dinesh Kumar Sharma and Smt. Vandana Kundra were named as accused along with other unknown persons. The names of the appellants transpired during investigation leading to the submission of charge sheet against them only, and after conclusion of the trial they were convicted.

9. We therefore find no reason to interfere with the conviction of the appellants. The appeals are dismissed.
Shri A.M.C.S Swamy Ade/Dpe/Hyd ... vs Mehdi Agah Karbalai

4.(a) Respondent No.1 herein is a consumer of electricity with Service Connection bearing SC No.CZ007583 connected with a load of 12903 W of Southern Power Distribution of Telangana Limited (SPDTL). On 12.11.2009 at about 12.26 hours, premises of respondent No.1 was inspected in his presence by the concerned staff of the appellant. At the time of inspection, the inspecting authorities have found extra pressing and seal bit bulging marks along with seal wire on the meter box seal. The said meter was replaced with another meter and the earlier meter was sent to MRT Lab for examination. The MRT Lab, on examination, certified that the meter was tampered. The loss thereby was assessed at Rs.6,28,383/- (Rupees six lakhs twenty eight thousand and three hundred and eighty three only). It is a case of the appellant that the offence committed by respondent No.1 is a second offence. The first offence registered against respondent No.1 was in Crime No.491 of 2008 dated 25.11.2008. The first criminal case registered against respondent No.1 was compounded on 03.08.2009 upon payment of Rs.47,000/- (Rupees forty seven thousand only).

(b) When the appellant noticed tampering of meter, on receipt of report from MRT Lab, the concerned officer has lodged a complaint on 24.11.2009 and the same was registered as First Information Report No.440 of 2009 on 25.11.2009, for the offence punishable under Section 135 of Electricity Act, 2003. On filing the charge sheet, as contemplated under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, on Crl.A.No. @SLP (Crl. No . 2073 of 2019 3 10.01.2011, the Special Court took cognizance of the case under Section 151 of the Electricity Act, 2003 as amended by Act 26 of 2007, which came into force from 15.06.2007, and registered the same as E.S.C. No.3 of 2011.

14. For the aforesaid reasons, we allow this appeal and set aside the impugned order dated 03.12.2018 in Criminal Petition No.13678 of 2011 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad. We make it clear Crl.A.No. @SLP (Crl. No . 2073 of 2019 10 that we have not gone into merits of the matter and it is open for the trial Court to record its own findings based on the evidence during trial.

15. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, with an observation as indicated above. Since the occurrence is of the year 2009, the trial court shall expedite the hearing of the case.

July 23, 2019
Randhir Kaur vs Prithvi Pal Singh .

3) The learned trial court vide judgment and decree dated April 13, Page 1 of 14 2010 decreed the suit. The appeal against said judgment and decree remained unsuccessful when such appeal was dismissed on August 11, 2012. However, in the second appeal, the decree for specific performance of the agreement was declined but instead decree for recovery of Rs.13,50,000/- paid by the appellant along with interest at the rate of 12% was granted. The High Court held that plaintiff was ready and willing to perform the agreement and that Dhanwant Singh was not the attorney to act on behalf of the appellant.

The jurisdiction to interfere in the second appeal is only where there is an error in law or procedure and not merely an error on a question of fact.

21) In respect of financial capacity, it has come on record that the sale deeds (Exh. P-15 and Exh. P-16) were executed by Randhir Kaur prior to January 30, 2005 for making payment to the defendants to execute the sale deed as per terms and conditions of the agreement. Therefore, the High Court was not within its jurisdiction to interfere in second appeal only for the reason that on the date of agreement, there was no specific power of attorney in favour of son of the plaintiff, Dhanwant Singh.

22) In view of the above, the judgment of the High Court is set aside and the decree passed by the lower appellate court is restored. The appellant is granted two months’ time to pay balance sale consideration to defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and upon receiving the amount, the defendants shall execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. If the defendants fail to receive the amount, the plaintiff will be at liberty to deposit the amount with the executing court and seek execution of the decree in accordance with law.

23) The appeal is allowed. No costs.

JULY 24, 2019.

Page 14 of 14
The Officer In Charge, Sub Regional ... vs M/S Godavari Garments Limited

2. The background facts in which the present Civil Appeal has been filed are briefly stated as under:

8 workers who were provided with the cloth, and were instructed by the appellants how to stitch it. The workers were paid on piece­rate basis. If a worker failed to stitch a garment as per the instructions, the appellants rejected the work, and asked the worker to re­stitch the garment. This Court held that such workers fell within the definition of “person employed” under Section 2(14) of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Shops and Establishments Act, 1956. It was held that:

8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the judgment passed by the Bombay High Court vide the Impugned Order dated 27.04.2012, being contrary to settled law, is set aside. The Order dated 19.04.1993 passed by the Appellant No. 1 is restored. The Respondent Company is directed to deposit the amount assessed by Appellant No. 1 towards Provident Fund dues of the women workers within 1 month from the date of this Judgment.

16 The Civil Appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms. All pending Applications, if any, are accordingly disposed of. Ordered accordingly.

.....................................J. (ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE) .…...............………………J. (INDU MALHOTRA) New Delhi, July 24, 2019 17
Lucknow Development Authority Vice ... vs Gopal Das (D) Thr.Lrs.

3) The facts leading to the present appeal are that LDA acquired total land measuring 168.592 hectares (666 Bigha, 7 Biswa, 8 Biswansi, 8 Kachwansi) vide notification dated November 12, 1981 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for development of Sitapur Road City Extension Scheme for residential purposes. Notification under Section 6 read with Section 17 was issued on December 3, 1981 and the award was published on January 15, 1986.

4) The land of the respondents measuring 1.200 hectares forming part of land acquired was sought to be released from acquisition from the State Government under Section 17 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 19732. The land was released from acquisition on May 23, 2011 whereby an order of restoration of land in question of Khasra Nos. 416 and 417 was passed in favour of the respondents along with an order of payment of development fee in terms of Section 17 of the Act. The respondents were directed to deposit an amount of Rs.1,57,22,056/- within one week being Rs.1,38,780/- as the cost of acquisition and Rs.1,55,83,276/- as the amount of development fee vide separate letter dated July 29, 2011. It is the said order which has been set aside by the High Court vide order impugned in the present appeal. The High Court held as under:

10) In view thereof, we find that the judgment passed by the High Court setting aside the claim of development charges is not sustainable. Consequently, the appeal is allowed and the said finding is set aside.

Page 7 of 8

11) We find that the order quantifying the development charges of Rs.1,57,22,056/- was raised without giving any opportunity of hearing to the respondents. Consequently, the demand letter/order dated July 29, 2011 is set aside with liberty to the appellants to communicate the amount incurred on acquisition and development charges in accordance with law. It shall be open to the respondents to seek remedy, if any, under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 in accordance with law.

JULY 24, 2019.

Page 8 of 8
State Bank Of India vs Atindra Nath Bhatacharyya

3) The respondent - Atindra Nath Bhattacharyya was charge sheeted on December 28, 1999 containing 16 charges on the ground that while working as Chief Manager of Baghbazar Branch of the Bank from November 19, 1997 to September 9, 1998, he has committed various irregularities pertaining to credit and local clearing instruments. The inquiry officer appointed conducted inquiry in respect of charges levelled against the respondent and submitted Page 1 of 7 his report dated January 14, 2002 to the Appointing Authority which was also forwarded to the respondent on April 12, 2002. The Appointing Authority found huge irregularities on the part of the respondent and imposed punishment of removal on January 24, 2003. The appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Authority on April 19, 2005.

6) Before the appeal could be decided on April 7, 2017, an order of removal from service was passed on May 2, 2016 inter alia on the ground that the respondent has committed serious lapses which resulted to perpetration of frauds, such acts are in gross violation of extant norms of the Bank and resulted undue gain to third parties.

xx xx xx

12) Even though, the judgment of the learned Single Bench finding fault with the order of removal as affirmed in the appeal, cannot be said to be justified in view of the judgment of this Court in the case of Mohammad Badruddin but since the Bank has not filed an appeal against such judgment, therefore, the correctness of the said judgment is not being examined in the present appeal which is directed against judgment of Division Bench of Calcutta High Court. Page 6 of 7

13) In view thereof, the present appeal is allowed.

JULY 25, 2019.

Page 7 of 7
Rupa Roy vs The New India Assurance Company Ltd.

3. A few facts need to be mentioned hereinbelow for the disposal of this appeal, which involves a short point.

4. The appellant is the claimant (applicant) and the respondents are the non­applicants in the claim petition filed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) out of which this appeal arises.

5. On 19.07.2004, when the appellant with her husband and minor son – Sourangshu was going towards Gachha Bazar Bus Stoppage on a rickshaw van, one Matador van bearing No. WB 57/5270 came on a high speed from opposite side and dashed the rickshaw van as a result of which all the 2 occupants of the rickshaw van suffered serious injuries.

8. It was inter alia alleged that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver/owner of the offending vehicle­respondent No. 2 and that it was insured with respondent No. 1 on the date of accident. It was alleged that due to permanent disability suffered by the appellant's son, the appellant is entitled to claim suitable compensation for him.

9. The respondents contested the claim. By award dated 16.02.2008, the Tribunal partly allowed the appellant's claim petition and awarded a compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/­ to the appellant. The appellant felt aggrieved and filed an appeal before the High Court at Calcutta. By impugned order, the High Court dismissed the appeal which gives rise to filing of the present appeal by way of 4 special leave by the appellant (claimant) in this Court.

16. Therefore, the only question, which is involved in this appeal, is whether the Courts below were justified in awarding a sum of Rs.2,00,000/­ to the appellant(claimant) for the injuries sustained by her minor son. So far as the other issue is concerned, such as liability of the Insurance Company, the same need not be considered because the Insurance Company has not questioned it.

19. We accordingly consider it just and proper to award a lump sum amount of Rs10,00,000/­ to the appellant ­ she being the mother of victim. It will enable her to take care of her son and for his upbringing and also towards the amount which the appellant and her husband has so far spent on the treatment of their son and is required to spent in future. While awarding the lump sum amount, we have taken into account all the aforementioned factors, which are relevant.

20. The sum awarded by this Court (Rs.10,00,000/­) would carry 6% interest which will 9 be payable to the appellant from the date of the impugned order of the High Court. Respondent No. 1 would pay the awarded sum to the appellant after adjusting Rs.2,00,000/­ together with interest awarded by the Tribunal, if already paid to the appellant. Let the amount be worked out and be paid as awarded by this Court within 3 months.

21. The appeal is accordingly allowed. The impugned order is set aside. Counsel fees Rs.10,000/­ payable by respondent No.1 to the appellant.

July 29, 2019 10
G. J. Raja vs Tejraj Surana

(4) If the drawer of the cheque is acquitted, the Court shall direct the complainant to repay to the drawer the amount of interim compensation, with interest at the bank rate as published by the Reserve Bank of India, prevalent at the beginning of the relevant financial years, within sixty days from the date of the order, or within such further period not exceeding thirty days as may be directed by the Court on sufficient cause being shown by the complainant.

6. The Appellant being aggrieved, filed Criminal O.P.No.3406 of 2019 in the High Court. By its order dated 08.02.2019, the High Court found no illegality or infirmity in the order awarding interim compensation under Section 143A of the Act but reduced the percentage from 20% of the cheque amount to 15% of the cheque amount.

(iv) A procedural statute should not generally speaking be applied retrospectively where the result would be to create new disabilities or obligations or to impose new duties in respect of transactions already accomplished.

25. The Appeal is allowed in aforesaid terms.

26. In the end, we express our sincere gratitude for the assistance rendered by Mr. Vinay Navare, learned Amicus Curiae.

July 30, 2019
Bharatbhai Bhimabhai Bharwad vs The State Of Gujarat

3. The father of respondents No.2 and 3-accused No.1 and 2 were loaned money by the father of complainant-Bharatbhai Bhimabhai Bharwad and due to grudge about the transactions, on 10.01.2019, the complainant-Bharatbhai and the witnesses were abused. On 10.01.2019 at 15:30 hours, Kishanbhai- respondent No.2-accused No.1 inflicted sword blow on the head of Ajitbhai (brother of complainant) and when Ajitbhai tried to save himself by lifting his hand, his left hand palm was cut. Alpeshbhai-respondent No.3-accused No.2 also dealt sword 2 blow on the chest of Ajitbhai and when prevented, the blow caused injuries on his right hand elbow. Ravibhai-accused No.3 has dealt indiscriminate blows of stick on the complainant and caused injuries to him. Shaileshbhai-friend of complainant also sustained injuries on both of his hands. On the complaint lodged by the complainant, FIR was registered in Crime No.02/2019 at Viramgam Rural Police Station under Sections 323, 324, 326, 307, 504, 506(2) and 114 IPC.

4. Respondents No.2 and 3 and other accused were arrested on 16.01.2019 and were remanded to judicial custody on 17.01.2019. The respondents No.2 and 3-accused No.1 and 2 filed bail application which was allowed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Viramgam vide order dated 06.02.2019. After considering the arguments and also the materials placed before the court, the learned Additional Sessions Judge observed that prima-facie case is made out against the accused and gravity of offence has to be taken into consideration. However, the learned Additional Sessions Judge granted bail on the ground that the injured Ajitbhai was discharged from the hospital on 24.01.2019 and other injured 3 witness-Shaileshbhai was also discharged from the hospital and that weapons allegedly used in the commission of offence have been recovered and also the statements of important witnesses are recorded. The trial court also observed that accused are young, having no criminal antecedents and that they are permanent inhabitants of Sokli village and their presence can easily be secured and on those findings, granted bail to respondents No.2 and 3 inter alia by imposing various conditions.

11. In the result, the impugned orders of the High Court dated 26.02.2019 and 07.03.2019 are set aside and these appeals 8 are allowed and the matter is remitted to the High Court for consideration of Criminal Misc. Application Nos.3528 of 2019 and 3529 of 2019 afresh. The High Court shall proceed with the matter as if the application challenges the order of grant of bail and proceed with the matter in accordance with law.

July 30, 2019.
Marvel Omega Builders Pvt. Ltd. vs Shrihari Gokhale

covered car parking spaces and open terrace was to be Rs.8,31,04,425/-. An agreement was entered into between the parties on 22.03.2013 incorporating mutual obligations and paras 5(a) and (b) thereof were as under:-

Even assuming that the villa is now ready for occupation (as asserted by the Appellants), the delay of almost five years is a crucial factor and the bargain cannot now be imposed upon the Respondents. The Respondents were, therefore, justified in seeking refund of the amounts that they had deposited with reasonable interest on said deposited amount. The findings rendered by the Commission cannot therefore be said to be incorrect or unreasonable on any count.

12. With the aforesaid observations the appeals stand dismissed. No order as to costs.

July 30, 2019.
Karbhari vs Deepak V. Chengede

6. The matters concerning election to the General Council and the Managing Committee of the Sabha were pending in the High Court and by its order dated 23.04.2018 the High Court directed that the election be Civil Appeal No. 5936 of 2019 @ SLP (Civil)No.27698 of 2018 Karbhari and others Vs. Deepak V. Chengede and others 4 held as per the Constitution of the Sabha. The process was, therefore, undertaken and the Election Officer declared the election programme on 07.05.2018. Insofar as the elections to the posts of seven Vice Presidents and seven Secretaries are concerned, true translation of the election programme was as under:

9. The appellants who are also members of the Sabha, challenged the decision of the Industrial Court, Ahmednagar by filing Writ Petition No.5599 of 2018 in the High Court which by its judgment and order presently under appeal found that no interference was called for and dismissed the writ petition.

15. The Industrial Court as well as the High Court were completely justified in taking the view as aforesaid. We, therefore, find no merit in Civil Appeal No. 5936 of 2019 @ SLP (Civil)No.27698 of 2018 Karbhari and others Vs. Deepak V. Chengede and others 10 the submissions advanced by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants. This appeal is consequently dismissed. No costs.

July 30, 2019.