L-NLProc/TathyaNyaya-and-FactLegalLlama-NyayaScrape-Datasets huggingface dataset:
Shub Karan Bubna @ Shub Karan Prasad Bub vs Sita Saran Bubna & Ors

The first respondent and his mother filed a suit for partition against petitioner and two others in the year 1960 in the court of the First Additional Judge, Muzaffarnagar, for partition and separate possession of their one-third share in the plaint schedule properties and for rendition of accounts. The suit was in respect of three non-agricultural plots and some movables. After contest the suit was decreed on 25.2.1964 directing a preliminary decree for partition be drawn in regard to the one-third share of the plaintiffs in the said plots and a final decree be drawn up through appointment of a Commissioner for actual division of the plots by metes and bounds.

2. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner (and others) filed an appeal before the Patna High Court which was dismissed on 29.3.1974. The first respondent filed an application on 1.5.1987 for drawing up a final decree. The petitioner filed an application on 15.4.1991 to drop the final decree proceedings as it was barred by limitation. The said application was dismissed by the trial court holding that once the rights/shares of the plaintiff had been finally determined by a preliminary decree, there is no limitation for an application for affecting the actual partition/division in accordance with the preliminary decree, as it should be considered to be an application made in a pending suit. The said order was challenged by the petitioner in a revision petition which was dismissed by the High Court order dated 15.1.2009. The petitioner has filed this special leave petition seeking leave to appeal against the said decision of the High Court.

Conclusion

16. In view of the foregoing, we are of the view that the application filed by the plaintiff in this case for drawing up of a final decree, was rightly held to be not subject to any period of limitation. We therefore dismiss this special leave petition as having no merit, with a request to expedite the final decree proceedings.

August 21, 2009.
M/S.Topper Builders & Construction ... vs Md. Israil & Ors

Heard learned counsel for the parties. The appellant filed suit for eviction of respondent no.1 on the ground of subletting. The trial court vide its judgment dated 28th August, 1981 decreed the suit by recording a finding that the tenant had sublet the premises without the written consent of the landlord, as required under Section 14 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act"]. On an appeal preferred by respondent no.1, the High Court reversed the judgment and decree of the trial court and dismissed the suit. Hence, this appeal by special leave.

produced any evidence of having sublet the suit premises after obtaining written consent of the landlord. This being the position, reversal by the High Court of the judgment and decree of eviction passed by the trial court cannot be sustained. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed, impugned order rendered by the High Court is set aside and decree for eviction passed by the trial court is restored.

Respondent No.1 is granted time till 28th February 2010, to vacate the premises in question upon filing undertaking to this effect in this Court within four weeks from today. It is directed that in case respondent No.1 fails to vacate the premises in question within the aforesaid time, it would be open to the decree-holder to file an execution petition for delivery of possession and in case such a petition has already been filed, an application shall be filed therein to the effect that respondent No.1 has not vacated the premises in question within the time granted by this Court. In either eventuality, the executing court is not required to issue any notice to respondent No.1. The executing court will see that delivery of possession is effected within a period of fifteen days from the date of filing of the execution petition or the application aforementioned. In case for delivery of possession any armed force is necessary, the same shall be deputed by the Superintendent of Police within forty eight hours from the date requisition is received therefor. It is also directed ....4/-

that in case anybody else, other than the respondent No.1, is found in possession, he shall also be dispossessed from the premises in question.
C.I.T,Delhi vs Atul Mohan Bindal

4. Atul Mohan Bindal - assessee filed return of his income for Assessment Year 2002-03 on August 8, 2002 declaring his total income Rs.1,98,50,021/-. In the assessment proceedings u/s 143, a notice alongwith questionnaire was issued to him by the Assessing Officer on November 29, 2002. Pursuant thereto, assessee attended the assessment proceedings and furnished the requisite details. During the assessment proceedings, it transpired that assessee worked with M/s DHL International(S) PTE Ltd., Singapore during the previous year and was paid salary in Singapore amounting to US$ 36,680.79 equivalent to Rs.17,81,952/-. The assessee explained that an amount of US $ 8199.87 (Rs.3,98,350/-) was deducted as tax from the aforesaid salary income and having paid tax on salary income earned in Singapore, he was of the view that the said income was not liable to be included in the total income in India. He however, offered salary income of Rs. 17,81,952/- to be included in his total income. The assessee was also found to have received an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- from his erstwhile employer M/s Honeywell International (India) Pvt. Ltd. in the previous year. His explanation was that the said amount was exempted under Section 10(10 B) of the Act being retrenchment compensation. According to the Assessing Officer, that amount could not be exempted u/s 10 2 (10B) as the assessee was not a workman. The assessee also earned interest income of Rs. 22,812/- from Bank of India which was not included by him in the total income but he offered for tax the said amount. The Assessing Officer, accordingly, added Rs.17,81,952/-, Rs.5,00,000/- and Rs.22,812/- to the income declared by the assessee in the return and assessed the total income of assessee at Rs.2,21,54,785/-. Penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) were initiated separately and penalty of Rs.7,75,211/- was imposed under Section 271(1)(c) by the Assessing Officer vide Order dated March 16, 2003.

21. From the above, we fail to see how the decision in Dharamendra Textile can be said to hold that Section 11C would apply to every case of non-payment or short payment of duty regardless of the conditions expressly mentioned in the section for its application.

16. In the result, appeal is allowed and the judgment of the High Court of Delhi passed on January 25, 2008 is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the High Court for fresh consideration and decision as indicated above. Since the assessee has not chosen to appear, no order as to costs.

........................J (Tarun Chatterjee) ........................J (R. M. Lodha) New Delhi August 24, 2009.
C.N.Malla vs State Of J&K & Ors

3. Facts are these, very briefly put. The appellant joined the service of the State of Jammu & Kashmir as Assistant Surgeon in 1970. He held various posts in the Directorate of Health Services and was promoted first as Lecturer and then as Assistant Professor in 1981. He was sent on deputation to Stanely Medical College, Madras for undergoing specialized training in Microvascular and Hand Surgery from January, 1986. Thereafter, the appellant proceeded on 30 days leave with effect from March, 1986. According to him, he had sent several applications for extension of leave for undergoing further training and seeking service in foreign country but his representations were not responded to by the state government and his services were illegally terminated without following the procedure prescribed in Jammu & Kashmir Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1956 (for short `Rules 1956') on September 18, 1987. On the other hand, the stand of the respondents is that after the period of sanctioned leave expired, the appellant did not join duty despite letters and reminders and continued to remain absent. Finally, by a notice dated July 16, 1987, the appellant was asked to show cause why his services should not be terminated for having remained absent unauthorisedly and, thereafter, by order September 18, 1987, his services were brought to an end.

7. However, the Division Bench set aside the order of the learned single Judge directing payment of back wages to the appellant.

13. Regard being had to all relevant facts and circumstances, particularly the fact that the appellant is a doctor by profession and must not have remained idle even after filing writ petition, full back wages from the date of filing writ petition until date of superannuation may not be justified. In our considered view, the demand of justice would be met if the appellant is awarded 50% back wages from the date of filing writ petition until he attained the age of superannuation.

14. Consequently, appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. The payment of due amount shall be made by the respondents to the appellant within one month from today failing which it will carry simple interest at the rate of 9% per annum from May 16, 1994 till the date of actual payment. Parties will bear their own costs. 7 .................................J (Tarun Chatterjee) .................................J (R.M. Lodha) New Delhi, August 24, 2009 8
C.N.Malla vs State Of J&K; & Ors

3. Facts are these, very briefly put. The appellant joined the service of the State of Jammu & Kashmir as Assistant Surgeon in 1970. He held various posts in the Directorate of Health Services and was promoted first as Lecturer and then as Assistant Professor in 1981. He was sent on deputation to Stanely Medical College, Madras for undergoing specialized training in Microvascular and Hand Surgery from January, 1986. Thereafter, the appellant proceeded on 30 days leave with effect from March, 1986. According to him, he had sent several applications for extension of leave for undergoing further training and seeking service in foreign country but his representations were not responded to by the state government and his services were illegally terminated without following the procedure prescribed in Jammu & Kashmir Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1956 (for short `Rules 1956') on September 18, 1987. On the other hand, the stand of the respondents is that after the period of sanctioned leave expired, the appellant did not join duty despite letters and reminders and continued to remain absent. Finally, by a notice dated July 16, 1987, the appellant was asked to show cause why his services should not be terminated for having remained absent unauthorisedly and, thereafter, by order September 18, 1987, his services were brought to an end.

7. However, the Division Bench set aside the order of the learned single Judge directing payment of back wages to the appellant.

13. Regard being had to all relevant facts and circumstances, particularly the fact that the appellant is a doctor by profession and must not have remained idle even after filing writ petition, full back wages from the date of filing writ petition until date of superannuation may not be justified. In our considered view, the demand of justice would be met if the appellant is awarded 50% back wages from the date of filing writ petition until he attained the age of superannuation.

14. Consequently, appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. The payment of due amount shall be made by the respondents to the appellant within one month from today failing which it will carry simple interest at the rate of 9% per annum from May 16, 1994 till the date of actual payment. Parties will bear their own costs. 7 .................................J (Tarun Chatterjee) .................................J (R.M. Lodha) New Delhi, August 24, 2009 8
Karampal Kaur vs State Of Punjab & Anr

Against the aforesaid order, the appellant filed a revision before the High Court. The High Court upheld the order dated 1.4.2008 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Muktsar and dismissed the revision petition.

In the entire statement of PW-1 Jagwinder Kaur, 3 the only allegations against the appellant is that goods, like suits, utensils, bedding etc. were kept by her in box and Almirah. There is no other allegation against the appellant in this case. This allegation, in our opinion, is hardly sufficient to convict the appellant for the offence under Section 498-A of Cr.P.C. Compelling the appellant to face the criminal trial on the basis of this allegation would be an abuse of the process.

The impugned order of the High Court is totally devoid of any merit and it is accordingly set aside. Consequently, the summoning order passed under Section 319 Cr.P.C. against the appellant is quashed.

The appeal is allowed and disposed of with the aforementioned observations.

....................J (DALVEER BHANDARI) ....................J (Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA) NEW DELHI, AUGUST 24, 2009.
P.S.Commission ... vs Arvind Singh Chauhan & Ors

3) The facts in brief are:- The appellant - Public Service Commission had issued two advertisements inviting applications from eligible and qualified persons for State Service Examination 2001. In the notification issued on 01.11.2001 it was clearly mentioned that the age limit for appearing in the Preliminary Examination shall be 30 years relaxable by three years as on 1.1.2002 and subsequently on 9.10.2003, another advertisement was issued where the age limit has been prescribed as 30 years relaxable by five years as on 1.1.2004.

4) The respondents (Arvind Singh Chauhan and others) appeared in the preliminary examination conducted by the appellant. They were declared passed in the said preliminary examination and were allotted roll numbers for appearing in the final examination which was to be conducted in May-June 2006. However, the respondents were not permitted by the appellant-Commission from appearing in the Viva-voce test/final examination on the ground that they were over aged.

5) Aggrieved by the aforesaid action of the appellant, the respondents filed a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature of M.P Bench at Gwalior, inter alia requesting the Court to direct the Public Service Commission not to exclude the respondents and other similarly situated candidates from participating in the viva-voce test/final examination and for other ancillary reliefs.

21) In view of the above discussion, the appeals are allowed. The impugned order is set aside. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, parties are directed to bear their own costs.
M/S Liberty India vs Commr.Of Income Tax,Karnal

4. The facts in the lead matter (Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(C) No. 5827/07 entitled M/s Liberty India v. CIT) are as follows:

Discussions and Findings:

12. In this batch of Civil Appeals we are concerned with admissibility of the amounts of duty drawback and DEPB for deduction under Section 80-IB.

19. Since reliance was placed on behalf of the assessee(s) on AS-2 we need to analyse the said Standard.

21. "Inventory" should be valued at the lower of cost and net realizable value (NRV). The cost of "inventory" should comprise all costs of purchase, costs of conversion and other costs including costs incurred in bringing the "inventory" to their present location and condition.

22. The cost of purchase includes duties and taxes (other than those subsequently recoverable by the enterprise from taxing authorities), freight inwards and other expenditure directly attributable to the acquisition. Hence trade discounts, rebate, duty drawback, and such similar items are deducted in determining the costs of purchase. Therefore, duty drawback, rebate etc. should not be treated as adjustment (credited) to cost of purchase or manufacture of goods. They should be treated as separate items of revenue or income and accounted for accordingly (see: page 44 of Indian Accounting Standards & GAAP by Dolphy D'souza). Therefore, for the purposes of 23 AS-2, Cenvat credits should not be included in the cost of purchase of inventories. Even Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) has issued Guidance Note on Accounting Treatment for Cenvat/Modvat under which the inputs consumed and the inventory of inputs should be valued on the basis of purchase cost net of specified duty on inputs (i.e. duty recoverable from the Department at later stage) arising on account of rebates, duty drawback, DEPB benefit etc. Profit generation could be on account of cost cutting, cost rationalization, business restructuring, tax planning on sundry balances being written back, liquidation of current assets etc. Therefore, we are of the view that duty drawback, DEPB benefits, rebates etc. cannot be credited against the cost of manufacture of goods debited in the Profit & Loss account for purposes of Sections 80-IA/80-IB as such remissions (credits) would constitute independent source of income beyond the first degree nexus between profits and the industrial undertaking.

23. We are of the view that Department has correctly applied AS-2 as could be seen from the following illustration:

Note: In above example, Department is allowing deduction on profit of Rs. 100 under Section 80-IB of the 1961 Act.

24. In the circumstances, we hold that Duty drawback receipt/DEPB benefits do not form part of the net profits of eligible industrial undertaking for the purposes of Sections 80I/80-IA/80-IB of the 1961 Act.

25. The appeals are, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs.

August 31, 2009
Regional Manager, Bank Of Baroda vs Anita Nandrajog

23. The brief background of the case as mentioned in the writ petition, is that respondent no.2 was employed in the office of petitioner-

clarification of the Fifth Bipartite Settlement which states :

No establishment can function if it allows its employees to behave in such a manner. We, therefore, uphold the order of the appellant-Bank dated 25.8.1989 terminating the service of the respondent as a voluntary cessation of her job, and we set aside the award of the Tribunal dated 5.6.1996 and the impugned judgment of the High Court dated 22.9.2003. Appeal allowed. No order as to costs. 13

September 1, 2009.
Gopal & Ors vs State Of Karnataka & Ors

O R D E R Heard learned counsel for the parties. The four appellants, along with one Naga @ Nagaraja and Anwar @ Md. Anwar (Accused No.3) were tried and, by judgment rendered by the Trial Court, acquitted of all the charges. Against the order of acquittal, when appeal was preferred by the State of Karnataka, by the impugned judgement, the High Court upheld the acquittal of accused- Naga @ Nagaraja but set aside the judgement and order passed by the Trial Court in relation to the appellants and accused-Anwar @ Md. Anwar and convicted them under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, [for short, `I.P.C.'] and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- each. Appellants Nos.2-4,i.e., Hashim, V. Krishna and Basha @ Kadir Basha and accused-Anwar @ Md. Anwar were further convicted under Section 324 read with Section 149 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a ....2/-

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, conviction and sentence of the appellants and accused-Anwar @ Md. Anwar are set aside and the order of acquittal rendered in relation to them by the Trial Court is restored.

....3/-

The appellants, who are on bail, are discharged from the liability of bail bonds.

So far as accused-Anwar @ Md. Anwar is concerned, he is directed to be released forthwith unless required in connection with any other case.
Santoshkumar Shivgonda Patil & Ors vs Balasaheb Tukaram Shevale & Ors

5. The Tahsildar, Shirol, on March 30, 1976, passed an order hereby 3/4th of portion of Land earlier in occupation of Tukaram was granted in favour of Shivgonda Satgonda Patil on the basis of his occupation as cultivator and 1/4th remained in favour of Tukaram Sakharam Shevale.

6. Tukaram Sakharam Shevale, until his death in 1990, did not challenge the Tahsildar's Order dated March 30, 1976 in any proceeding. It was only after the death of Tukaram that his legal heirs, namely, Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 herein, made an application before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Ichalkaranji in 1993 seeking revision of the order of Tahsildar, Shirol passed on March 30, 1976. The Sub- Divisional Officer, Ichalkaranji invoked his revisional power under Section 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code and after hearing the parties and getting the report from the Tahsildar, Shirol vide his order dated August 16, 1994 allowed the revision application and set aside the order dated March 30, 1976 giving 3/16th share in R.S. No. 210/1 to Shivgonda Satgonda Patil. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Ichalkaranji declared that 1/4th share in R.S. No. 210/1 admeasuring 1H 66R shall be deemed to have been granted to Tukaram Shevale and pik-pahani entries made in favour of Shivgonda Satgonda Patil shall be treated as unauthorized and illegal.

7. Upset by the order dated August 16, 1994, the present appellants preferred appeal before the Additional Collector, Kolhapur who agreed with the view of Sub-Divisional Officer, Ichalkaranji and rejected the appeal on September 16, 1995.

9. The present appellants then filed writ petition before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Appellate side). The Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on June 20, 1996.

17. In what we have discussed above, the appeals deserve to be allowed against respondent Nos. 1 to 5 and are allowed and impugned orders are quashed and set aside as against them. Parties will bear their own costs.
Bombay Anand Bhavan Restaurant vs Dy. Director , Esi Corpn. And Anr

2) Briefly stated the facts are as follows:-

8) The appellant, being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, had filed an appeal before the ESI Court and Additional Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore, as provided under Section 75 of the ESI Act. The ESI Court dismissed the application/appeal, on the ground that use of LPG gas also amounts to use of electrical energy for the purpose of manufacturing activity and that the manufacturing activity is being carried on with the aid of power and 4 since 10 or more employees were employed, the appellant is covered under the provisions of the ESI Act.

9) The appellant had carried the matter further by filing Misc. Appeal before the High Court and the same was dismissed following the earlier ruling of the Court in ESI Corpn. Vs. Bhagat Ram and Sons and Anr., reported in 2001 (2) Labour Laws Journal 973.

11)The facts in Misc. First Appeal No.1954 of 2002 are more or less similar to the facts in the other appeal which we have already noticed. The only additional fact is that, the appellants in this appeal manufacture sweets and savories by using cooking gas and the number of employees employed by them was not more than 17 (seventeen) at any point of time. They were also unsuccessful before all the forums.

32)In our view, the use of LPG satisfies the definition of power as it is mechanically transmitted and is not something generated by human or animal agency.

33) Since the establishment of the appellants involves a manufacturing process with the aid of LPG gas, which can now be termed as power, the establishment of the appellants can be termed as factories, and therefore, the ESI Act will apply to these establishments. In view of the above discussion, we see no grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment of the High Court. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed. No order as to costs.