L-NLProc/TathyaNyaya-and-FactLegalLlama-NyayaScrape-Datasets huggingface dataset:
Rakesh Baban Borhade vs The State Of Maharashtra & Anr Etc.Etc

3. Case of the prosecution arises out of a private complaint filed by M/s. Merit Magnum Construction alleging commission of offences against the appellant and other accused u/s 420, 406, 423, 424 r/w Section 34 IPC wherein directions were issued by the Magistrate u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C. for proper investigation. Case of the complainant is that on 21.12.2005, the seven companies through their Directors entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to sell the rights of their land to the complainant - M/s. Merit Magnum Construction, formerly M/s Vimal Builders. Till 2006, the complainant is said to have paid a sum of Rs.7,22,12,256/- to the said companies. It is alleged that inspite of the timely payment of Rs.7,22,12,256/-, the accused persons did not transfer the lands as promised in the MOU. It is the case of the complainant that during the period from 2005 to April 2013, the Directors and shareholders of the above mentioned seven companies– Suresh V. Vora, Rajnikant N. Parekh and the appellant– Rakesh Baban Borhade with common intention to deceive the complainant company avoided transferring ownership rights, interest, shares and related documents to the complainant company and also deliberately suppressed several transactions relating to the property prior to MOU.

4. The Sessions Court dismissed the anticipatory bail application filed by the appellant and other accused. Aggrieved by the same, the accused persons moved the High Court, which vide its impugned order dated 1.4.2014 while granting bail to the other accused persons, dismissed the application of the appellant. The appellant is before us, assailing the correctness of the impugned order.

11. In the result, these appeals are allowed and the appellant is granted anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.25,000/- with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court. The appellant shall co-operate with the investigating agency. Without prejudice to the contention of the parties, the complainant-second respondent (M/s.Merit Magnum Construction) is permitted to withdraw rupees one crore deposited by the appellant in this Court. Withdrawal of the said amount of rupees one crore by the second respondent shall be subject to the result of pending litigation between the parties or any other litigation contemplated by the parties pertaining to the MOU dated 21.12.2005. The appeals stand disposed of accordingly.

November 19, 2014
Prinl.Govt.Pre-Univ.Col.& Anr vs Jambu Kumar Mutha

3. In OS No.125 of 1996 plaintiff-respondent No.1 in these appeals prayed for declaration of his title over the suit property, removal of unauthorised construction raised over the same and permanent injunction restraining defendants in the suit from interfering with the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The plaintiff's case in a nutshell was that he is the owner of the land measuring 1 acre 38 guntas situate in Malur Town, Kalur District fully described in the plaint out of which the defendants had unauthorisedly occupied an area measuring 377 feet x 34 feet to construct a school building. This unauthorised occupation and construction was, according to the plaintiff, to be removed and possession over the entire suit property protected by issue of a permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants.

4. The defendant's case, as set out, in the written statement filed on their behalf was that the suit property belonged to the State Government and that the same had been used for construction of a Government school building subsequently upgraded as a pre-university college being run and maintained by the State Government. On the pleadings of the parties the trial Court framed as many as eight issues which were answered by the Court in terms of its judgment and decree dated 23rd June, 2000. The end result of the discussion on the issues was a decree in favour of the plaintiff- respondent No.1 to the effect that he was the owner of plaint Schedule "B" property unauthorised construction raised over which was liable to be removed. The trial Court further restrained the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff over Schedule 'A' property which was held to be in ownership and possession of the plaintiff.

5. Aggrieved by the Judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, appellants in SLP (C) No.20841 of 2012 approached the High Court for permission to file an appeal against the said judgment and decree which permission was granted by the High Court by its order dated 30th November, 2000 culminating in the filing of RFA No.806 of 2000. No appeal, it appears, was filed by the State Government or by the Principal of the Government Pre-University College defendants in the suit to challenge the judgment and decree suffered by them. I.A. No.2 of 2008 was, however, moved by them in RFA No.806 of 2000 seeking their transposition as appellants in the said appeal. That prayer was declined by the High Court by an order dated 18th November, 2010 with the observation that the defendants-respondents No.2 and 3 in RFA No.806 of 2000 being parties to the suit were free to challenge the judgment and decree passed against them in separate appeals, if they so advised.

November 20, 2014
Surjit Singh vs State Of Punjab

On 07.09.1999 at about 1.30 pm the complainant Mustafa submitted a written report in Police Station Bhagwanpur, Haridwar to the effect that in the intervening night between 6th and 7th September 1999 he along with his brother Behroj, nephew Wasim and father Ali Hassan were sleeping in the verandah and that in the night at about 1200 hrs. he woke up and saw one Sabbir armed with Palkati, his brother Kabir armed with pharsa and one Naim armed with lathi coming to the verandah. Naim allegedly asked where was Ali Hassan, whereupon Kabir stated that Ali Hassan was sleeping and exhorted that he be killed, after which Sabbir gave a blow by palkati on the neck of Ali Hassan while he was sleeping. Ali Hassan died instantaneously. Upon alarm being raised these three persons ran away and while running they were seen by Farid Akhtar and Taimur.

3. On the basis of the above report Case Crime No.147 of 1999 under Section 302/504 IPC was registered. During the investigation statements of the complainant and other witnesses were recorded. Sabbir, Naim and Kabir were arrested and their statements led to the recovery of palkati and other weapons. The post-mortem on the body of the deceased was conducted by Dr. O.P. Sharma. After completion of investigation Sabbir, Kabir and Naim were charged for having committed the offences under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and under Section 504 IPC.

4. The prosecution examined complainant as PW-1, his brother Behroj as PW-2, nephew Wasim as PW-4 and Taimur as PW-3. The earliest version in the form of FIR, which was within few hours of the incident naming all the three accused was reiterated by PW-1 Mustafa and supported by other three eye-witnesses, namely, PWs 2, 3 and 4. However, the trial court was of the view that the fatal blow was dealt by Sabbir and though the other two accused, namely, Kabir and Naim were present at the place of occurrence, they had not participated in the actual assault. The appreciation by the trial court in this respect is quoted hereunder:

7. In the meantime the State, being aggrieved by the order of acquittal insofar as Kabir and Naim are concerned, preferred Government Appeal No.386 of 2003. The High Court after appreciating the entire material on record found the approach of the trial court to be completely erroneous in granting the benefit to Kabir and Naim. It was observed that all three accused were armed with deadly weapons and had entered the house of the deceased at 1200 hrs. in the night and that the essence of Section 34 IPC, namely, consensus of minds of two or more persons to participate in a criminal act to bring about a particular result was fully evident. The High Court, therefore, set aside the acquittal of said Kabir and Naim and convicted them under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life.

12. We, therefore, confirm the judgment and order of the High Court and dismiss the present criminal appeal. The accused, who are in custody, shall serve the sentence awarded to them by the High Court.
Calcutta Port Trust & Ors vs Anadi Kumar Das (Capt) & Anr

This Interlocutory Application is filed by the applicant-respondent for modifying the operative part of the final judgment and order dated 13.11.2013 passed by this Court in Civil Appeal No. 7148 of 2008 directing the appellants Calcutta Port Trust to disburse the arrears of pension to the applicant-respondent stating various facts mainly alleging that despite the judgment and order dated 13.11.2013, though this Court has ordered for disbursement of pension to the claimant-applicant, the Calcutta Port Trust has not cleared the outstanding dues payable to him in so far as he applied for pension to the competent authority to come over to the pension scheme by submitting an application on 23.07.2001 by switching over to the pension scheme from CPF Scheme. Despite legal notice dated 27.05.2014, the Calcutta Port Trust has taken it to mean that the applicable date for the purposes of disbursement of pension to the respondent as he was permitted to exercise his option by condoning the delay in submitting his application is the judgment dated 13.11.2013, wherein this Court while setting aside the impugned judgment and order specifically directed the Calcutta Port Trust to allow respondent to exercise option in terms of Circular dated 19.02.1986 and as the option has been allowed, expressly and impliedly stands condoned.

7. With the above said clarification and directions to the appellants, this application is disposed of. This clarification order is confined to the facts of this case.
Sita Ram vs State Of Haryana And Anr

The facts of the case are briefly stated hereunder:-

18. In view of the aforesaid undisputed fact, the acquisition proceedings of land and building of this appellant are lapsed since the acquisition proceedings of the land and building of the appellant under Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013.

21. In the light of the above findings recorded by us on the rival factual and legal contentions, and considering the averments made in the application and documents produced on record and after examining Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 along with the decision of Pune Municipal Corporation and other cases referred to supra, we are of the considered view that the plea of the appellant should be accepted and relief as prayed for has to be granted for the undisputed reason that the Award was passed on 08.10.2003 and five years have elapsed long back and the compensation undisputedly was not paid within 5 years to the appellant. The conditions mentioned in Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 are satisfied by the appellant for allowing the plea as stated by him that the land acquisition proceedings in respect of his acquired land and building must be deemed to have lapsed in terms of Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013. The above mentioned three Judge Bench decision and other cases of this Court referred to supra with regard to the interpretation made under Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013, would be aptly applicable with all fours to the fact situation in respect of the land covered in this appeal.

22. In view of the aforesaid findings and reasons recorded by us, the prayer made in the application of the appellant is allowed holding that the acquisition proceedings in respect of the appellant's land/building have elapsed. I.A. No. 5 is allowed. The appeal is disposed of in the above said terms by quashing the acquisition proceedings of the land/building of the appellant.

.....................................................................J. [V.GOPALA GOWDA] .....................................................................J. [ADARSH KUMAR GOEL] New Delhi, November 25, 2014 ITEM NO.1 COURT NO.10 SECTION IVB S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS C.A. No. ........../2014 arising from SLP(C) No(s). 5346/2012 SITA RAM Petitioner(s) VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR. Respondent(s) Date : 25/11/2014 This petition was called on for JUDGMENT today.

Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.Gopala Gowda pronounced the judgment of the Bench comprising His Lordship and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel.

Leave granted.

The appeal as well as application(s), if any, are disposed of in terms of the signed order.

(Signed Non-Reportable judgment is placed on the file)
Motilal Yadav vs State Of Bihar

Prosecution story in brief is that PW-6, Subhash Chandra Singh, gave a written information at Police Station, Kahalgaon, on 23.4.2002 at 8.05 a.m. that his grandson Sagar Kumar (PW-5) has been kidnapped. The informant narrated in the written report that the victim (Sagar Kumar), aged six years, along with his sister PW-4 Riya Kumari, aged four years, was going to St. Joseph NTPC School, Kahalgaon in a rickshaw pulled by PW-1 Anil Ram. The informant further told that the rickshaw puller told him that one person came to the rickshaw and took the victim after telling him that his father was calling him at the railway station. On receiving information, the informant immediately rushed to the location where the rickshaw puller Anil Ram (PW-1) was waiting for the victim's return. An FIR No. 117/2002 was recorded at the police station and the investigations were taken up by the Investigating Officer.

Investigation revealed that after one day of kidnapping of the child, a demand of Rs.10.00 lakhs was made by someone on phone disclosing his name as Prem Prakash Yadav (co-accused) for release of the boy. When several calls were made, on 17.5.2002 the victim's parents agreed to pay Rs.6.00 lakhs according to their economic condition. PW-3, Sourav Kumar (father of the victim) passed on the phone number of the caller to the police. The kidnappers called father of the victim to Haldwani (Uttarakhand), on which the witness (PW-3) desired to know as to by what route he could reach there. The caller informed the father of the victim to come by Farakka Express to Lucknow, and from there by a meter gauge train to Lal Kuan from where he would be getting tempo (three wheeler) to reach Haldwani. Accordingly PW-3 Sourav Kumar reached Haldwani on 21.5.2002 with money, and stayed at Kamta Hotel and waited for the caller's messenger from where he was taken by the present appellant (Motilal Yadav) to the side of rivulet near Krishi Utpadan Bazar Samiti (Haldwani). Two persons (co-accused) were already waiting there. After making enquiry as to the amount brought by the witness (PW-3), two of the accused persons took the bag. Thereafter PW- 3 Sourav Kumar was taken to Haldwani Bareilly Road where the victim was handed over to his father. Victim's father, along with his recovered son, reached back Kahalgaon on 25.5.2002, and narrated the entire story to the police. After collecting evidence and interrogating the witnesses, prosecution filed charge-sheet against seven accused, namely, Raghunath Yadav, Prem Kumar Yadav @ Tuntun Yadav, Motilal Yadav (present appellant), Bina Devi, Bijay Yadav, Prem Prakash Yadav and Mamta Devi.

In view of the above principle of law laid down by this Court, we are unable to accept the submission of learned amicus curiae that not holding of test identification parade in the present case is fatal for the prosecution.

For the reasons, as discussed above, we do not find any force in this appeal which is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed.

November 25, 2014.
M/S Magnum Promoters P.Ltd vs Union Of India & Ors

Brief facts of the case are stated hereunder:

Therefore, the provisions of Sections 3, 4, and 9 have no application to the fact situation on hand and there is no substance in this plea of the respondent and the same is rejected.

22. In view of the aforesaid findings and reasons recorded by us, the prayer made in this application is allowed. The acquisition proceedings in respect of the appellant's land have lapsed. Consequently the appeal is also allowed quashing the acquisition proceeding notifications in respect of the appellant's land. No costs.

..................................................................J. [V. GOPALA GOWDA] ..................................................................J. [C. NAGAPPAN] New Delhi, November 27 ,2014 ITEM NO.1C-For Judgment COURT NO.9 SECTION XIV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS I.A. No. 3 in Civil Appeal No(s). 4284/2011 M/S MAGNUM PROMOTERS P.LTD. Appellant(s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s) Date : 27/11/2014 This appeal was called on for JUDGMENT today.

Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.Gopala Gowda pronounced the judgment of the Bench comprising His Lordship and Hon'ble Mr. Justice C. Nagappan.

I.A. No. 3/2014 is allowed.

The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.
Ram Kishan & Ors vs State Of Haryana & Ors

The brief facts are mentioned hereunder.

13. In view of the aforesaid decisions of this Court referred to supra, and the findings and reasons recorded by us the application filed under Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 is allowed. Consequently, having regard to the facts of this case, this appeal is allowed by quashing the acquisition proceedings in so far as the land of the applicants/appellant Nos. 24-28 are concerned. There shall be no order as to costs.

.....................................................................J. [V. GOPALA GOWDA] .....................................................................J. [C. NAGAPPAN] New Delhi, November 27, 2014 ITEM NO.1B-For Judgment COURT NO.9 SECTION IV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS I.A. No. 3-4 in Civil Appeal No(s). 3872/2010 RAM KISHAN & ORS. Appellant(s) VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. Respondent(s) Date : 27/11/2014 This appeal was called on for JUDGMENT today.

Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.Gopala Gowda pronounced the judgment of the Bench comprising His Lordship and Hon'ble Mr. Justice C.Nagappan.

I.A.No. 4/2014 for exemption from filing official translation is ordered.

I.A. No. 3/2014 is allowed.

The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.

(Signed Non-Reportable judgment is placed on the file)
Cimco Birla Ltd vs Rowena Lewis

2. The brief facts of the case in nutshell are stated as under :-

4. Against the said award, the appellant filed Revision Application No. 72 of 1996 before the Industrial Court which was rejected vide order dated 8.10.1996

5. Being aggrieved of the said award, the appellant filed Writ Petition (C) No. 6064 of 1996 before the High Court and the same was dismissed by the High Court on 2.4.2004 for default.

10. The appellant being aggrieved by the said order, filed Writ Petition (C) No. 3135 of 2009 against the said order before the High Court urging various grounds.

In pursuant to the said interim order, it is stated on behalf of the appellant that the amount is deposited in this Court and the same is kept in fixed deposit initially for a period of one year and that came to be extended from time to time. The respondent is at liberty to withdraw the said amount including the interest earned thereon. The receipt of the said back wages deposited shall be adjusted towards the back wages awarded by the Industrial Court in its award and order dated 16.4.2007 passed in Complaint (ULP) No. 588/1996 wherein the appellant was directed to pay/deposit back wages with all attendant benefits up to date upon deducting Rs.2,98,213/-, and to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum in case of non compliance of the order within one month.

18. In view of the aforesaid reasons, we pass the following order :

19. Interlocutory Application No. 1 filed in this appeal is disposed of.

...........................................................................J . [V. GOPALA GOWDA] ........................................................................J. [C. NAGAPPAN] New Delhi, November 27, 2014 ITEM NO.1A-For Judgment COURT NO.9 SECTION XV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Civil Appeal No(s). 10856/2010 CIMCO BIRLA LTD. Appellant(s) VERSUS ROWENA LEWIS Respondent(s) Date : 27/11/2014 This appeal was called on for JUDGMENT today.

For Appellant(s) Mr. Shiv Khorana,Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Nirnimesh Dube,Adv.

Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.Gopala Gowda pronounced the judgment of the Bench comprising His Lordship and Hon'ble Mr. Justice C.Nagappan.

The appeal is dismissed in terms of the signed order.

(Signed Non-Reportable judgment is placed on the file)
Union Of India Etc., Rep.Thr.Supdt.Of ... vs T. Nathamuni

3. The facts giving rise to the present appeals are that on the basis of a complaint from one S. Muniraj a case being RC 50(A)/2009 was registered by Central Bureau of Investigation, ACB, Chennai against respondent - T. Nathamuni, Inspector of Income Tax on the allegation that the accused had demanded an amount of Rs. 5,000/- from the complainant. A trap was laid and allegedly the accused was caught red handed while accepting the bribe amount. Initially, the case was investigated by Mr. Lawrence, Inspector of Police and owing to some administrative reasons, the Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation, Anti Corruption Branch, Chennai filed petition dated 22.9.2007 under Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short, 'the Act') before the Court of Special Judge CBI cases, Madurai seeking permission for investigation of the case by Shri G.A. Suriya Kumar, Sub-Inspector of Police, instead of Mr. Lawrence, Inspector of Police.

18. As noticed, on the basis of the permission accorded by the Magistrate, the Sub-Inspector, CBI proceeded with the investigation and finally submitted charge-sheet. It was only after that, said order of Magistrate was questioned by the Respondent by filing a criminal petition in the High Court. The learned Single Judge, appreciating the submission made by the learned counsel, held that since the special court without assigning any reason permitted Sub-Inspector of Police to investigate the matter, the order is not in accordance with law and disposed of the petition giving liberty to the prosecution to file a fresh petition before the court seeking permission to get the matter investigated by a competent officer.

19. As discussed earlier, the High Court erred in overlooking the gist of order of Special Judge permitting the Sub-Inspector to investigate. Further, having regard to the fact that no case of prejudice or miscarriage of justice by reason of investigation by the Sub-Inspector of Police is made out, the order of the High Court cannot be sustained in law. For the reasons stated above, these appeals are allowed and the order passed by the High Court is set aside. The concerned Court shall now act with utmost expedition.

..................................J. [ M.Y. Eqbal ] ..................................J [Shiva Kirti Singh] New Delhi December 01, 2014