L-NLProc/TathyaNyaya-and-FactLegalLlama-NyayaScrape-Datasets huggingface dataset:
All Escorts Employees Union vs The State Of Haryana

6) Insofar as factual error that has occurred in the judgment dated September 14, 2017 as pointed out in these applications is concerned, the appellant/applicant is correct in its submission. Though amendment to clause 4 of the Constitution of the appellant in November, 2007 was initially approved by the Registrar, however, the said approval was withdrawn by the Registrar vide order dated October 21, 2015. It was stated in the counter affidavit filed by the Additional Registrar that initially the amendment was approved inadvertently, which had occasioned because of the concealment of the material facts about the rejection of the earlier application by the Registrar. However, after this fact came to the notice of the Registrar, the amendment was withdrawn vide order 5 dated October 21, 2015 after following due procedure.

11) For these reasons, the applications praying for recall of the findings recorded in paragraphs No. 24 and 25 of the judgment dated September 14, 2017 passed in Civil Appeal Nos. 12843-12844 of 2017, are dismissed.

MARCH 23, 2018.
Bitan Sengupta vs The State Of West Bengal

3. The present Special Leave Petition has been preferred against the impugned judgment/final order dated 12.09.2017 passed by the High Court of Kolkata in Criminal Revision Petition No.3400/2016.

4. It may be stated at the outset that on a written complaint from respondent no. 2 herein, Case No. 554 PS Durgapur was registered under Sections 498A, 406, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act,1961 against the appellants. In 2 the aforesaid complaint, the allegations against the appellants are that they demanded dowry from respondent no.2 and on non-fulfillment of demand, respondent no. 2 was assaulted and tortured by them. After completion of the investigation, chargesheet was filed in the Court against the appellants for the aforesaid offences and charges were framed. The learned Judicial Magistrate vide order dated 27.06.2014 found the appellants guilty of the offence under Section 498A of the IPC and directed appellant no.1 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 year and simple imprisonment for 6 months to appellant no.2 and acquitted them for the other offences. Being aggrieved, the appellants filed appeal before the Sessions Court which was dismissed vide order dated 21.09.2016.

6. The dismissal of the appeal was challenged by filing revision application before the High Court. The High Court vide impugned order dated 12.09.2017 concurred with the findings of the Sessions Court and dismissed the revision petition.

9. We, accordingly, allow this appeal and set aside the order of conviction passed against the appellants.

MARCH 26, 2018
Municipal Corporation vs Bvg India Limited

4. Brief facts leading to these appeals are as under:

The tender was to be awarded based on the final score arrived at by taking the total of the weighted scores of technical and financial evaluations as per the criteria mentioned in the NIT at Article III. Respondent no.1 scored low on technical evaluation inasmuch as it got 58.94 in the weighted score, whereas the successful bidder i.e. respondent no. 3 got a weighted technical score of 67.36. On a final analysis based on technical and financial weighted scores, Global Waste Management Cell Pvt. Ltd. got first rank (L1 bidder) amongst the three bidders by getting the highest score. Hence, it was awarded the contract. Such award of contract was questioned by the unsuccessful bidder (B.V.G. India Limited, L2 bidder) before the High Court by filing the Writ Petition, which came to be allowed by the impugned judgment.

During the pendency of these matters, on 26.04.2016, this Court granted an interim order in favour of the successful bidder, 5 namely respondent no. 3, staying the operation of the impugned order of the High Court, consequent upon which the successful bidder was awarded the contract and is discharging the duties assigned.

2. Evaluation of financial bid:

Therefore, the observations and the findings of the High Court in respect of the certificate issued by Mira Bhayandar are not correct.

49. As aforementioned, unless the Court concludes that the decision making process or the decision taken by the authority bristles with mala fides, arbitrariness, or perversity, or that the authority has intended to favour someone, the Constitutional Court will not interfere with the decision-making process or the decision.

50. Thus, the questions to be decided in this appeal are answered as follows:

51. In view of the above, the impugned judgment and order of the High Court cannot be sustained and the same is set aside.

52. The instant appeals are allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Shivawwa And Anr. vs The Branch Manager National India ...

2. A claim petition was filed in reference to the death of one Chanabasayya Sidramayya Hiremath, son of appellant No.1 and brother of appellant No.2 herein. On 23rd January, 2001, the deceased was returning, after unloading food-grains, on tractor-trailer bearing No. KA-29/T-1651/T-1652 belonging to respondent No.2, and being driven by an employee of respondent No.2, one Mallikarjuna Beemappa Ganiger. At around 1.00 AM, it is alleged that owing to the rash and negligent driving of the said Mallikarjuna Beemappa Ganiger, the deceased fell off the tractor-trailer and suffered fatal injuries. A claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was subsequently filed before the Tribunal, Bagalkot, by the legal representatives of the deceased seeking compensation of Rs. 8 lakh from respondent No.1 - insurance company, respondent No.2 - owner and the driver, Mallikarjuna Beemappa Ganiger. After considering the facts and evidence on record, the Tribunal rejected the respondents’ contention that the deceased had himself been negligent by standing on a tractor hook which connected the tractor and the trailer and concluded that the accident had occurred due 3 to the negligence of the driver of the motor vehicle. The Tribunal, thus, passed an award against the respondents, jointly and severally, to compensate the family members of the deceased with a sum of Rs.3,20,000/- (Rupees three lakh twenty thousand only) with interest at the rate of 6% per annum, from 3.7.2001 to 29.4.2003 and from 11.7.2007 till date of realisation of the award amount.

12. However, in the facts of the present case, we have no hesitation in taking a view that consequent to affirmation and restoration of the finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal regarding the factum of deceased had travelled along with his goods at the time of accident, the insurer would be obliged to satisfy the compensation amount awarded to the claimants.

14. As a result, the appeal would succeed only to the extent of setting aside the impugned judgment of the High Court passed in the First Appeal filed by the insurer (respondent No.1) as prayed and consequently, by restoring the Award 17 dated 21st January, 2008 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Badalkot. We order accordingly.

15. The appeal is allowed in the above terms with costs.

..……………………………...CJI.

March 28, 2018.
Lakshmamma vs Commnr. Bangalore Dev. Auth.

2. The Scheduled Caste (Harijan) House Building Co-operative Society Limited (hereinafter called as the “Society”), respondent no.2, was allotted 4 acres 23 guntas of land in Survey No.32 of Marenahalli for development of residential layout for its members. Bye law No.5(iii) restricted membership of the Society to Scheduled Caste persons only. The Society allotted and sold site no.10 to the appellant’s vendor on 24.12.1985. The appellant purchased the same on 29.08.2005 by a registered sale deed. Subsequently, one P. Venugopal, who was the Secretary of the Society from 1983 to 1988, after expiry of his term, allotted and registered sites to persons who were not members of the Society in 1997, and which included one S. Vasanth Raj, and to whom the appellant’s plot was resold.

3. The allotments so made in 1997 came to be cancelled by the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies on 25.03.1998. The appeal preferred by S. Vasanth Raj before the Karnataka 2 Appellate Tribunal was dismissed as withdrawn on 03.08.2006.

5. The appellant then represented to the Authority for restoration of the “khata” in her name. The impugned order dated 15.11.2006 declined her request on the ground that she 3 did not belong to the scheduled caste, and therefore, her membership had been cancelled.

7. The order of the High Court is, therefore, held to be unsustainable, and is set aside. The Authority shall restore “Khata” in the name of the appellant.

8. The appeal is allowed.
Ashish Kumar Yadav vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh

3. These cases pertain to the selection to the post of Police Constables in the State of Uttar Pradesh. The appellants belong to the category of those candidates who are alleged to have used whitener/blade/eraser etc. Their case was also considered along with the similarly situated Sub-Inspector candidates by this Court in Hanuman Dutt Shukla & Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. as per Judgment dated 19.01.2016 in Civil Appeal Nos. 

9. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.

April 03, 2018.

Mrs. Mahalaxmi Pavani, Sr. Adv. Mr. Purushottam Sharma Tripathi, AOR Mr. Mukesh Kumar Singh, Adv.

Mr. Ravi Chandra Prakash, Adv. Mr. Tomy Chacko, Adv.

Mr. Rajiv Kumar, Adv.

Mr. Shantanu Jugtawat, Adv.

Ms. Vani Vyas, Adv.

Mr. Abhishek Tripathi, Adv.

Mr. Amit, Adv.

Mr. Lokendra Malik, Adv.

Ms. Kamana Singh, Adv.

Mr. V. Shekhar, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Prithviraj Singh, Adv.

Ms. Stuti Naina Karwal, Adv.

Mr. Rajiv Dubey, Adv.

Mr. Shashank Shekhar, Adv.

Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Adv.

Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, AAG, UP Mr. Ramjee Pandey, Adv.

Mr. Abhishek, Adv.

Mr. Susheel Tomar, Adv.

Mr. Balraj Dewan, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay condoned. Leave granted. The civil appeals are disposed of in terms of the signed non-reportable Judgment.

Pending Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand disposed of. (JAYANT KUMAR ARORA) (RENU DIWAN) COURT MASTER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (Signed non-reportable Judgment is placed on the file)
The Dir. Prasar Bharati vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, ...

4. In order to appreciate the issue involved in these appeals, it is necessary to set out the facts hereinbelow.

5. The appellant is known as "Prasar Bharati Doordarshan Kendra". It functions under the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India. The dispute in this case relates to the appellant's Regional Branch at Trivandrum.

6. The appellant, in the course of their business activities, which include the running of the TV channel called "Doordarshan", has been regularly 2 telecasting advertisements of several consumer companies.

14. The appellant felt aggrieved and filed appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-II, Thiruvanathapuram. By order dated 04.03.2005, the Commissioner concurred with the reasoning and conclusion arrived at by AO and accordingly dismissed the appeals.

38. In the light of the foregoing discussion, we concur with the reasoning and the conclusion arrived at by the High Court and find no merit in these appeals. The appeals thus fail and are accordingly dismissed.

April 03, 2018 23
Avinash C vs The State Of Karnataka Chief Secretary

2. The matter arises out of Selection conducted by the Karnataka Public Service Commission ("KPSC") pursuant to Notification dated 3.11.2011 for filling up 362 posts of the Group 'A' and Group 'D' in the State of Karnataka. Examinations were conducted on 22.04.2012. Written tests for mains were conducted between 15.12.2012 and 16.01.2013. Interviews were held between 01-04-2013 and 27.05.2013.

3. There were complaints of mal-practices and irregularities in the conduct of examinations as well as the interviews. It was inter alia alleged that there were demands of bribes from candidates. The FIR was 2 lodged against Chairman, Member and some officials of the KPSC. On receipt of the interim report of CID dated 10th September, 2013, the State Government on 15th December,2013 directed annulment of evaluation of written examination as well as the personality test. The KPSC however, published the select list. The State Government withdrew the requisition for appointments on 14.08.2014.

4. The above order was challenged by the successful candidates before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal vide order dated 19th October, 2016 quashed the decision of the State Government and directed appointment of the selected candidates. Some selected candidates have been given appointments.

e) All orders of appointment/s issued pursuant to Final Select List dated 21.03.2014 prepared by KPSC are declared illegal and shall stand quashed; and

f) Government Order, Government Order No. CaaSuE 53 SaLoSa 2014, Bangalore dated 14.8.2014, withdrawing requisitions issued to KPSC for selection of Gazetted Probationers for 2011, and to close selection process, is sustained."

The appeals are disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
M.P. Power Management Company Ltd. vs Renew Clean Energy Pvt. Ltd.

3. Brief facts which led to filing of this appeal are as follows:

4. Since respondent No.1 was unable to obtain the requisite land for establishing the power plant, respondent No.1 requested assistance from the State Government. Accordingly, the Collector, District-Rajgarh by order dated 21.04.2016 allotted 96.73 acres of revenue land to MP New and Renewable Energy Department for further allotment on lease to respondent No.1. This was done by the appellant even though the land procurement was the obligation of the bidder. 2

5. According to respondent No.1, there were difficulties in accessing the land, because when measurement of land was taken on 29.06.2016, it was found encroached and the project team faced heavy resistance, physical attacks etc. and therefore, respondent No.1 vide its letter dated 29.09.2016 requested the appellant to allow to change of location of the project. The said permission sought for by respondent No.1 was granted by the appellant by its Resolution dated 29.12.2016. The relevant portion of the Resolution reads as under:-

7. As per clause 2.5.1 of the PPA, a maximum period of nine months beyond 07.06.2016 for achieving Conditions Subsequent enables the appellant to terminate the agreement if respondent No.1 failed to satisfy 3 the Conditions Subsequent by this date along with penalty which was to be calculated as per clause 2.5.1 of the PPA. In the light of the abovesaid provisions of the PPA, the appellant by order dated 11.08.2017 terminated the PPA and imposed a penalty of Rs.11,95,54,200/- on respondent No.1. Being aggrieved, respondent No.1 filed Writ Petition No.12432 of 2017 before the High Court praying that the appellant be directed not to give effect to termination and encashment of performance bank guarantee. The High Court vide impugned judgment dated 18.08.2017 partly allowed the writ petition setting aside the order of termination of the contract while maintaining the invocation of the bank guarantee.

14. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. The respondent No.1 shall pay the penalty of Rs.11,95,54,200/- to the appellant within a period of four weeks from the date of this judgment. No costs.

April 05, 2018 8
Seema Upadhyay vs Union Of India And Ors. Ministry Of ...

VIII) Qasba Vijaygarh, Block Akrabad, Aligarh in the name of Jai Kishore Agrawal, relation of Devender Agrawal. IX) Chandan Automobile, Kuktai, Sadabad-Agra Marg, near Mandi Samiti in the name of Devender Agrawal. There are two Petty Diesel dealer licenses in the name of Deepak Agrawal – one at Maindu Hathras and the other in the name of Devender Automobiles at Ladpur-Hathras whereas two such licenses in the name of one person is contrary to the rules.” 4 The allegation is that Devender Agrawal owns multiple dealerships for the distribution of petroleum products, and they are held in the names of persons closely related to or associated with him. It is in this view of the matter that this Court considered it necessary to allow the impleadment of the aforesaid individual against whom allegations have been made. On 11 March 2015 the Solicitor General was requested to assist the Court. 3 On 26 August 2016 this Court allowed the impleadment of the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas. In the order of this Court, reference was also made to the allegations contained in paragraph 9 of the writ petition. This Court directed a fact finding inquiry into the averments contained in paragraph 9, by an officer of the rank of Joint Secretary to the Government of India, to be nominated by the Secretary in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas. The relevant part of the order reads thus:

8 These are essentially matters of policy. The Union Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas is seized of the issue. Steps have been taken from time to time, as elaborated in the affidavit filed in this Court. 9 While we have dealt with the two grievances of the petitioner, we may also note that that in the counter affidavit which has been filed in these proceedings by the second respondent, it has been stated that the petition is not a genuine recourse to the jurisdiction in public interest. It has been stated that the spouse of the petitioner and the second respondent contested elections in 2007 and 2012 to the Legislative Assembly in Uttar Pradesh and the second respondent was returned as the elected candidate. A public interest litigation was filed before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in which, it has been 10 submitted, the allegations were identical to those contained in the writ petition in the present case. The writ petition before the High Court was dismissed on 6 April 2011. From the averments contained in the counter affidavit, the defence that the petition has been instituted for reasons other than a genuine effort to espouse an issue of public interest cannot be discarded. Be that as it may, we are not inclined to keep the proceedings pending before this Court any further in view of what has been stated in the earlier part of this judgment. 10 The petition shall, accordingly, stand disposed of.

...........................................CJI [DIPAK MISRA] ...........................................J [A M KHANWILKAR] ...........................................J [Dr D Y CHANDRACHUD] New Delhi;

April 05, 2018
Ashim Ranjan Das (D) By Lrs. vs Shibu Bodhak And Others

tenure-holder or any other intermediary above a raiyat or a non-agricultural tenant and includes a service tenure-holder and, in relation to mines and minerals, includes a lessee and a sub-lessee;”

9. It appears that since only Golap Bala Saha Mondal had filed the earlier writ petition, the State Government took steps qua the land of Jitendra Lal Paul on the premise that the land vested in the State Government and executed Deeds of Ryoti Settlement with regards to the land in favour of respondents No. 1 and 2 herein. The first two respondents before us are therefore the patta holders of the land through registered pattas of July, 1980. That is how the title came to Civil Appeal No.3932/2009 Page 8 of 15 respondent Nos.1 & 2, before the sale to the Appellant.

16. The aforesaid appeal filed by respondent Nos.1 & 2 was, however, allowed vide impugned order dated 7.5.2004, noticing that respondent Nos.1 & 2 herein were the patta holders in respect of the land and were not heard by the Tribunal before directing the cancellation of the pattas given to them. They had continued in possession since 1980 and it is only on issuance of notice by the appropriate authority in April, 2001 that they came to know of the Civil Appeal No.3932/2009 Page 12 of 15 cancellation of the patta. The writ petition filed, which was transferred to the Tribunal only made a prayer for mutation of the land in the name of the appellant for which patta was held by respondent Nos.1 & 2 and they were not parties. It was further opined that the Tribunal having already reached a finding and issuing directions to the authorities for mutation of the plots in favour of the appellant, the hearing to be given by the Block Land and Reforms Officer would be of no consequence. The order dated 19.9.2000 of the Tribunal was, thus, set aside as also all proceedings thereto. However, no observations were made on the merit of the controversy and this setting aside was necessitated on account of violation of principles of natural justice. The Tribunal was directed to give a chance to the first two respondents herein to file their affidavits and thereafter pass an order on the merits of the controversy raised by the appellant.

19. We are, thus, of the view that there is no merit in the appeal, which is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

April 05, 2018.

Civil Appeal No.3932/2009 Page 15 of 15
Uma Pandey vs Munna Pandey

3) The issue involved in the appeal lies in a narrow compass so also the facts involved in the appeal are short. They are stated hereinbelow to appreciate the issue.

5) The appellants and the respondents are members of one family and are related to one another.

6) The appellants filed a civil suit being Title Suit No.21/1993 against the respondents in the Court of Sub-Judge V, Gopalganj claiming partition and separate possession of agriculture lands as detailed in the schedule appended to the plaint.

7) According to the appellants, the lands were ancestral in the hands of the parties to the suit and being members of family, they were entitled to claim their share in the suit lands qua the respondents (defendants). It was, inter alia, on this assertion the appellants filed a suit for partition and separate possession of the suit land of their separate shares against the respondents (defendants).

8) The respondents contested the suit and denied the appellants’ claim in the written statement on several grounds on facts and in law. Parties went to trial. The issues were framed. Documents were filed and oral evidence was adduced. 3

9) The Trial Court decreed the appellants’ suit. The respondents (defendants) felt aggrieved and filed first appeal. The First Appellate Court allowed the defendants’ appeal and dismissed the appellants’ suit. The appellants felt aggrieved and filed second appeal before the High Court. By impugned Judgment, the High Court dismissed the appeal in limine. The High Court held that the second appeal filed by the appellants (plaintiffs) did not involve any substantial question(s) of law and hence it was liable to be dismissed in limine. It is against this judgment, the plaintiffs felt aggrieved and filed the present appeal by way of special leave in this Court.

12) In our considered opinion, the High Court erred in dismissing the second appeal in limine on the ground that it did not involve any substantial question(s) of law.

16) Whenever such question arises in the second appeal at the instance of the appellant, it deserves admission on framing appropriate substantial 6 question(s) on such questions to enable the High Court to decide the appeal on merits bi-party.

18) In the light of the foregoing discussion, we cannot concur with the reasoning and the conclusion arrived at by the High Court as, in our view, it wrongly dismissed appellants’ second appeal in limine.

21) In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. Impugned judgment is set aside. The appeal is remanded to the High Court for its decision on merits on the substantial questions of law framed by us.

22) We, however, make it clear that we have not gone into the merits of the case. The High Court will accordingly decide the appeal on merits strictly in accordance with law uninfluenced by any of our observations.

23) Since the appeal is quite old, we request the High Court to decide the same preferably within six months.

April 09, 2018 9