L-NLProc/TathyaNyaya-and-FactLegalLlama-NyayaScrape-Datasets huggingface dataset:
Shailesh Jasvantbhai & Anr vs State Of Gujarat & Ors

JUDGMENT (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 1494 of 2004) With CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 119 OF 2006 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 3908 of 2004) ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

Background facts in a nutshell are as under:

After having their pans, both the accused came there and asked the complainant to pay the charges for their pans. A quarrel started as the complainant refused to accept the demand of the accused. Thereafter at about 9.30 p.m. on the next day, when complainant and his friend's, Balmukund and Shailesh were standing at the pan shop situated opposite a PCO, both the accused came there, each was armed with a knief and started abusing the complainant. Accused No. 2 Jayantubha caught hold of the complainant and accused No. 1 Pratap gave knife blow on the right hand of the complainant. He also gave another blow on the left hand of the complainant. When the complainant shouted for help, appellant Shailesh intervened. Both the accused diverted their attention to Shailesh by inflicting blows with knife on him. Shailesh sustained injury on the left side of the neck and fell down on the ground. Thereafter Balmukund and Bharat also intervened. Accused thereafter fled. Both the injured were taken to Dr. Dhirajbhai (PW1) for the treatment who also informed the police. The police thereafter recorded the complaint and started investigation, submitted the chargesheet against accused. Trial was held as accused persons pleaded innocence. As noted above, the trial court found them guilty and convicted and sentenced them. Trial Court's judgment was assailed before the High Court.

Above being the position we set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and remit the matter to the High Court for a fresh hearing on the question of sentence, uninfluenced by any observation made in these appeals.

The appeals are allowed to the aforesaid extent.
Iqbal Naseer Usmani vs Central Bank Of India And Ors.

2. The appellant obtained a loan of Rs. 64,000/- from the first respondent on 30.5.1981 for the purchase of a motor vehicle under the terms of agreement between the appellant and the first respondent. The loan had to be discharged by payment of certain instalments. The appellant defaulted in repayment of this loan. First respondent filed Regular Suit No. 66 of 1991 for recovering the amount of Rs. 2,48,438.64 p. which represented the unpaid amount of loan together with accumulated interest thereon. The Civil Court by a decree dated 28.11.1995, decreed the said amount. The appellant filed an appeal against the said decree in Forma Pauperis with an application for being declared as a pauper. This application was rejected by the appellate court by order dated 4.4.2002.

8. In the result, we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court with liberty to the first respondent-bank to recover the money due under the decree in any other manner permissible in law. There will be no order as to costs.
M/S Motor Industries Co. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central ...

Appellant is engaged in the manufacture of nozzles, nozzles holder and injectors. Vide show- cause notice dated 3.9.1986, the department called upon the appellant to show cause as to why duty @ 20% ad valorem on the value of nozzles and nozzle holders should not be recovered in respect of injectors on the ground that the appellant had produced nozzles and nozzle holders falling under tariff item 8409.00 which were captively consumed for the manufacture of injectors falling under 8409.00 for which no declaration was made by the appellant in their classification list. At this stage, we may point out that the matter has a chequered history, it has been remanded several times and for the reasons mentioned hereinafter, it is not necessary to set out the entire history of the prior litigation. Suffice it to state that in reply to the show-cause notices, the appellant submitted that fitting of nozzles into nozzle holders did not amount to manufacture; that, even after such fitment, the end-result remained "nozzles and nozzle holders"; that, this entire controversy stood settled by the earlier judgment of Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellant Tribunal (for short "the tribunal") in the case between the same parties, namely, Collector of Central Excise v. Motor Industries Co. Limited reported in 1989 (43) ELT 290; that, nozzle and nozzle holder had no independent application as such; that, they have to be used in the IC engine in an assembled state to create combustion in the combustion chamber of IC engines. According to the appellant, an injector was a fitment of nozzles into nozzle holders and that on coupling, no new product came into existence. In reply, the appellant further stated that non-vehicular injectors were exempted from payment of duty. In this connection, it was submitted that non-vehicular injectors constituted parts of diesel engine used by agriculturists and farmers and, therefore, the Government decided to grant exemption to such non-vehicular injectors. At this stage, it may be noted that nozzles and nozzle holders stood excluded from exemption notification no.217/85 dated 8.10.1985. However, according to the appellant, by Amendment Notification No.79/86 dated 10.2.1986, non-vehicular injectors were also given the benefit of exemption, which has not been appreciated by the department (See Written Submissions filed by the assessee before the A.C., on running page no.145 of the paperbook of original record]. Similarly, according to the appellant, exemption was also given by the Government to vehicular nozzles and nozzle holders used in a factory of production vide notification no.75/86 dated 10.8.1986 (See Written Submissions filed by the assessee before the A.C., on running page no.142 of the paperbook of original record].

For the above reasons, we set aside the impugned judgment of the tribunal dated 20.4.2000 and remit the matter to the Adjudicating Authority for de novo adjudication of the show-cause notices. Accordingly, the above civil appeals filed by the assessee stand allowed, with no order as to costs.
The Commissioner Of Police And Ors vs Syed Hussain

The respondent was a police constable. He stood as surety to one Ahmed Qureshi. The said person was accused in 32 cases involving snaching of goods from other persons.

The alleged misconduct on the part of the respondent was admitted. A departmental proceeding was initiated against him and upon return of verdict of guilt by the inquiry officer, the respondent was directed to be removed from service by the Disciplinary Authority. The respondent filed an Original Application before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal questioning the said order. The Tribunal considered the matter in depth and opined that there was no merit in the said application. The Tribunal noticed that the inquiry officer in his report arrived at a finding of fact that the respondent herein knew fully well that the said Ahmed Oureshi was involved in a series of snatching cases. It was also noticed that the respondent had been attending the Court in the said cases. It further noticed that the police officer who was cross-examined as prosecution witness also stated that the respondent aided several other criminals in the city in securing bails from the Courts.

On the basis of the said findings, the Original Application was dismissed.

It is, therefore, beyond any doubt or dispute that the doctrine of proportionality has to be applied in appropriate case as the depth of judicial review will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case.

For the foregoing reasons, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained, the same is set aside accordingly. The appeal is allowed and the judgment and order passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal is restored. There shall be no order as to costs.
Shin Satellite Public Co. Ltd vs M/S Jain Studios Limited

This Arbitration Petition is filed by the petitioner, Shin Satellite Public Co. Ltd. against the respondent, M/s Jain Studios Ltd. under sub-section (6) of Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). It is prayed in the application that Hon'ble Mr. Justice M. L. Pendse (Retired) be appointed as Sole Arbitrator, or in the alternative, any other retired Judge of a High Court may be appointed as an Arbitrator. The Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India has nominated me to exercise power under sub-section (6) of Section 11 of the Act and that is how the matter has been placed before me for passing an appropriate order.

It is the case of the petitioner that it is a Company registered under the laws of Thailand, having its principal office in Thailand. The petitioner carries on the satellite business and has got three satellites in the orbit, viz., Thaicom-1, Thaicom-2 and Thaicom-3. The petitioner, through above satellites, provides broadcasting and internet services to various Companies/ firms in the world. The respondent is a Company duly registered under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at New Delhi.

According to the petitioner, an agreement was entered into between the parties on August 10, 1999 for availing broadcasting services of the petitioner by the respondent. The agreement, inter alia, provided for supply of satellite services, payment of fees, etc. Clause 23 provided for arbitration in case of dispute arising from the interpretation or from any matter relating to the performance of the agreement or rights or obligations of the parties. Since the dispute arose between the parties, the petitioner, through advocate addressed a letter/notice to the respondent on September 9, 2004 demanding for arbitration under clause

23. The petitioner, in the said letter, stated that it had appointed Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.L. Pendse (Retired) as its arbitrator and called upon the respondent to appoint an arbitrator. The petitioner, however, received a letter dated 7th October, 2004 from the respondent's advocate contending that the arbitration clause was not legal and valid and clause 23 of the Arbitration Agreement could not be termed as 'Arbitration Clause'. According to the petitioner, thus, the respondent failed to appoint an arbitrator which compelled the petitioner-company to file present application under Section 11(6) of the Act. A prayer was, therefore, made to make an appointment of an arbitrator.

For the foregoing reasons, the arbitration petition stands allowed and Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.L. Pendse (Retired) is accordingly appointed as Sole Arbitrator. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

361; Crawford on Statutory Construction, pp. 217-218.

Read Dickerson has suggested:
Syndicate Bank & Ors vs Venkatesh Gururao Kurati

On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, the following charges were framed against the respondent on 5th August, 1985 with the statement of imputations of misconduct:

However, the learned single Judge was of the opinion that punishment imposed on the respondent was disproportionate to the gravity of the charge proved. The learned single Judge was also of the opinion that the respondent was placed under suspension from 19.7.1989 and he was removed from service on 29.7.1989 i.e. two days before the date on which the petitioner (respondent herein) would have attained the superannuation age in the normal course. The petitioner (respondent herein) served the appellant's bank for more than 33 years and except this disciplinary proceeding there was no other allegation of misconduct against the petitioner (respondent herein) while working in the bank. The petitioner (respondent herein) was removed from the bank service just two days before he completed the age of 58 years and during his old age, he must necessarily have something to maintain himself and his family members. On these compassionate grounds, the learned single Judge converted the order of removal from service into compulsorily retirement.

The sole question, therefore, to be determined is, whether non-supply of documents, which did not form part of chargesheet and were not relied upon by the prosecution prejudice the delinquent officer resulting in vitiating the enquiry proceedings.
Commnr.&Secretary To Govt vs N. Govindan Achary And Ors

Background facts as highlighted by the appellants are essentially as follows:

The State of Tamil Nadu was at the relevant point of time following two types of schemes. One was the pensionary scheme under Madras Liberalised Pension Rules, 1960 (in short 'Liberalised Rules') and other was known as Non- Pensionary Contributory Provident Fund Scheme (in short the 'Provident Fund Scheme') under the Tamil Nadu State Transport Department Operation Subordinate Retiring Invalid and Compassionate Gratuity (Non-Pensionable Establishment) Rules.

As noted above, the G.O.No.212 was issued on 23.9.1974. When the G.O. was issued certain doubts were entertained as to under which scheme the concerned employees were covered. According to the appellants the respondents opted to continue in the Non-pensionary Contributory Provident Fund scheme by exercising option in writing under Rule 34 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules (in short 'Pension Rules'). Certain benefits were granted on 18.7.1975 to the employees engaged by the Public Sector Undertakings and the State Government.

(BY ORDER OF THE GOVERNOR) S. GUHAN SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT."

The erstwhile Tamil Nadu State Transport Department employees absorbed permanently in the State Transport Undertakings should be allowed pension increase also in their pension besides Dearness Allowance, Additional Dearness Allowance as applicable from time to time to Government pensioners who retired on that date as per the orders issued in the letter third read above.

(BY ORDER OF THE GOVERNOR) A.K. VENKAT SUBRAMANIAN COMMISSIONER & SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT"
Commnr.&Secretary; To Govt vs N. Govindan Achary And Ors

Background facts as highlighted by the appellants are essentially as follows:

The State of Tamil Nadu was at the relevant point of time following two types of schemes. One was the pensionary scheme under Madras Liberalised Pension Rules, 1960 (in short 'Liberalised Rules') and other was known as Non- Pensionary Contributory Provident Fund Scheme (in short the 'Provident Fund Scheme') under the Tamil Nadu State Transport Department Operation Subordinate Retiring Invalid and Compassionate Gratuity (Non-Pensionable Establishment) Rules.

As noted above, the G.O.No.212 was issued on 23.9.1974. When the G.O. was issued certain doubts were entertained as to under which scheme the concerned employees were covered. According to the appellants the respondents opted to continue in the Non-pensionary Contributory Provident Fund scheme by exercising option in writing under Rule 34 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules (in short 'Pension Rules'). Certain benefits were granted on 18.7.1975 to the employees engaged by the Public Sector Undertakings and the State Government.

(BY ORDER OF THE GOVERNOR) S. GUHAN SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT."

The erstwhile Tamil Nadu State Transport Department employees absorbed permanently in the State Transport Undertakings should be allowed pension increase also in their pension besides Dearness Allowance, Additional Dearness Allowance as applicable from time to time to Government pensioners who retired on that date as per the orders issued in the letter third read above.

(BY ORDER OF THE GOVERNOR) A.K. VENKAT SUBRAMANIAN COMMISSIONER & SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT"
Ram Saran vs I.G. Of Police, Crpf And Ors

Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:-

The Deputy Commandant 45/BN. CRPF was appointed as Inquiry Officer to conduct the Departmental Enquiry. After enquiry the Inquiry Officer submitted the inquiry report. The Commandant (S.G.), the Disciplinary Authority after considering the report was of the view that the charge official deserves stringent punishment. But keeping in view his long service of 28 years with good grading for the past 10 years, he was inclined to take a lenient view and in purported exercise of power under Section 11(1) of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 (in short the `Act') and Rule 27 of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955 (in short the `Rules') imposed penalty of reduction to the rank of NK (GD) for a period of one year from 10.9.1997 to 9.9.1998 without cumulative effect. The matter was placed before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, C.R.P.F., Nagpur who by order dated 16.1.1998 differed from the proposed punishment and directed dismissal from service. Accordingly, notice was issued to the appellant. After considering the reply the punishment awarded was dismissal from service. The said order was challenged in appeal before the Departmental Appellate Authority which was dismissed. Thereafter, the writ petition was filed, which as noted above was dismissed.

Though the case related to a false caste certificate, the logic indicated clearly applies to the present case.

In that view of the matter the appeal is without merit and is dismissed but in the circumstances without any order as to costs.
M/S Dove Investments Pvt. Ltd. & Ors vs M/S Gujarat Industrial Inv. ...

J U D G M E N T [Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) Nos.5172 of 2005] W I T H CIVIL APPEAL NO. 943 OF 2006 [Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No.5260 of 2005] M/s Sterling Holiday Resort (India) Ltd. Appellant Versus M/s Gujarat Industrial Inv. Corporation Ltd. & Ors. Respondents S.B. SINHA, J :

The factual matrix of the matter, however, would be noticed from Civil Appeal arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No.5260 of 2005.

It is not in dispute that upon compliance of the requisite formalities, as envisaged under Section 108 of the Act, Respondent No.1 was to present the said shares with the Appellant by 08.12.1999. However, it did so only on 02.01.2001. Respondent No.1 raised a grievance that the Appellant although had registered a transfer of 2,99,800 shares pledged by Respondent Nos.2 to 4, but failed to effect registration of transfer in respect of the remaining 22,93,000 shares. According to Respondent No.1, the said shares are freely transferable and the conduct of the Appellant in not effecting registration thereof is mala fide and without sufficient cause. Respondent No.1 filed an application before the Company Law Board. The Company Law Board by a judgment and order dated 23.08.2004 allowed the said application holding :

An appeal thereagainst was preferred by the Appellant herein before the High Court of Judicature at Madras in terms of Section 10F of the Act. An appeal was also preferred by Respondent Nos.2 to 4 herein. By reason of the impugned judgment, the appeals preferred by the Appellant herein as also Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 came to be dismissed.

The fact that the Appellant had taken a loan of Rs.4.5 cores is also not in dispute. Furthermore, we are of the opinion that by reason of the impugned judgment no injustice as such has been done to the Appellants and in that view of the matter this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India may not interfere with the impugned order, even if it may be lawful to do so.

[See also Transmission Corporation of A.P. Ltd. v. Lanco Kondappali Power (P) Ltd. (2006) 1 SCC 540] Following the aforementioned decisions, we are of the opinion that with a view to do complete justice to the parties, no inference with the High Court's judgment is called for.

For the foregoing reasons, we are of the opinion that no case has been made out for exercise our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. The appeals are dismissed. No costs.
B.H.E.L & Anr vs B.K. Vijay & Ors

The respondent was appointed as an Assistant Foreman (Safety). He was placed in SA II grade. The said scale of pay was accepted by the respondent without any demur whatsoever. A notification dated 02.01.1985 was issued by the State Government notifying the appellant as a Safety Officer in the factory, for which a Safety Officer was required to be appointed. As the number of employees working in the said Unit was 1600, indisputably only one Safety Officer was required to be appointed. The respondent, who at the relevant time was working as an Assistant Foreman was said to have been nominated to look after the safety provisions as contained in the Act and the Rules , in addition, to his existing work. He was however, re-designated as Assistant Foreman (Safety).

The respondent was first promoted to the post of Foreman (Safety) in the pay-scale of Rs. 965-1665 on 25.6.1986. On a query made by the Director of Factories, the appellant informed him that the respondent was the in-charge of Safety in its factory being in the pay-scale of Rs. 1965-52- 1225-55-1685 and had been enjoying an independent status.

i) Sr. Executive (earlier Sr. Officer/Sr. Engineer) E2 4 years

p) General Manager I/c/General Manager E8 3 years

Before a person in terms of the promotion rules is promoted to the post of Sr. Executive, he must hold a post in the executive cadre having salary payable to E-1 to E-5 grade. We have furthermore noticed that so far as pay and other allowances are concerned the 'personnel manual' itself suggests that E-2 grade is a grade for Sr. Engineer/Sr. Officer/Sr. Executive. The chart of 'standard executive designations' in the company shows that before a person is placed in the next higher grade he has to be in the next below post for the number of years mentioned therein.
The Chairman Railway Board & Anr vs T. Vittal Rao & Ors

The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute. The respondents herein at all material times were and still are working as Train Superintendents. Admittedly prior to 2.8.1984 they were placed in the non-supervisory category. The Railway Board issued a circular on 2.8.1984 in terms whereof they were placed in the supervisory category.

Indisputably, prior to 2.8.1984 those who were to work beyond rostered hours were entitled to draw overtime allowance. As by reason of the aforementioned circular dated 2.8.84 the respondents were placed in the supervisory category, they became disentitled to draw overtime allowance. The said circular letter however, was withdrawn by the Railway Board on or about 11.4.2001, inter alia, stating:

For the foregoing reasons we do not find any merit in this appeal and it is accordingly dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs.
Shiva Nath Prasad vs State Of West Bengal & Ors

To complete the chronology of events, suffice it to state that vide order dated 05.10.2004, CJM Alipore held that a prima facie case for offence under sections 120-B/406/417/420 IPC was made out against the accused. Accordingly, cognizance was taken. Accordingly, accused were summoned on 29.11.2004.

We reiterate that our observations in the judgment should not be read as our opinion on the merits of the matter. Similarly, the applicability of the relevant section to the facts of the present case does not arise at this stage.

For the above reasons, we find no merit in these appeals and the same are accordingly dismissed.