L-NLProc/TathyaNyaya-and-FactLegalLlama-NyayaScrape-Datasets huggingface dataset:
The State Of Punjab vs Rakesh Kumar

3. In   order   to   appreciate   the   merits   of   theseappeals,   brief   facts which have emerged from the case of the prosecution need to be noted   at   the   outset.   In   all   these   appeals,   the   accused­ respondents were apprehended with“manufactured drugs” and convicted   by   the   Trial   Court   for   offences   committed   under Section   21   or   Section   22   of   the   Narcotic   Drugs   and Psychotropic  Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter  referred to as “N.D.P.SAct”). The alleged offences and conviction recorded by the Trial Court against the respondents are listed below:

17. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case and 16 the   gravity   of   offence   alleged   against   the   accused­respondents, the order of the High Court directing suspension of sentence and grant of bail is clearly unsustainable in law and the same is liable to be set aside.

18. Accordingly   the   impugned   order   passed   by   the   High   Court   is hereby   set   aside   and   the   concerned   authorities   are   directed   to take the accused­respondents herein into custody forthwith.
Sangeeta Agrawal vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh

3. Few facts need mention infra to appreciate the short controversy involved in this appeal.

13.  We, therefore, find ourselves unable to concur with   such   disposal   of   the   application   by   the   High Court  and   feel  inclined to set aside the  impugned 5 order and remand the case to the High Court (Single Judge)   with   a   request   to   decide   the   application afresh on merits in accordance with law keeping in view   aforementioned   observations   after   issuing notice to respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

14. Having formed an opinion to remand the case in the light of our reasoning, we do not consider it proper to go into the merits of the case.

15. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal succeeds   and   is   accordingly   allowed.   Impugned order is set aside. The case is remanded to the High Court for its decision on merits uninfluenced by any of   our   observations   in   this   order   after   notice   to respondents.

December 03, 2018  6
Johra And Ors vs State Of Haryana And Ors

3. Few facts need mention  infra  for the disposal of these appeals.

7. Though  learned counsel for  the parties made lengthy   submissions   on   merits   of   the   case   in support   of   their   respective   stands   but   keeping   in view the admitted fact emerging from the record of the   proceedings   that   the   impugned   order   was passed   without   hearing   the   present   appellants despite   they   being   party   respondents   in   the   writ 3 petition,   we   are   of   the   considered   view   that   the impugned order is not legally sustainable.

12. We have not set out the entire factual dispute which led to filing of the writ petition, nor set out the   stand   taken  by the parties against each other before the High Court and nor dealt with any factual issues   arising   in   the   case   though   argued vehemently   by   both   the   learned   counsel   against each other.

13. In   our   view,   it   is   for   the   parties   to   raise   all their   pleas   before   the   High   Court   to   enable   it   to decide   in   accordance   with   law.   We,   therefore, express no opinion on any of the pleas.

14. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeals succeed   and   are   accordingly   allowed.   Impugned order   is   set   aside.   The   writ   petition,   out   of   which these   appeals   arise,   is   restored   to   its   original number before the High Court.

15. Let   the   writ   petition   be   decided   by   the   High Court   after   hearing   all   the   parties   in   accordance with law. Since the matter relates to a large piece of the land, it must be disposed of within six months from   the   date   of   this   order   without   allowing   any party to seek any adjournment.

December 03, 2018  6
Omveer Singh vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh

3. Few   facts   need   mention   hereinbelow   to appreciate   the   short   controversy   involved   in   this appeal.

9. We are, therefore, unable to know the factual matrix   of   the   case   after   reading   the   impugned judgment   except   the   legal   principles   laid   down   by this Court in several decisions.

12.  We, therefore, find ourselves unable to concur with   such   disposal   of   the   application   by   the   High Court  and   feel  inclined to set aside the  impugned order and remand the case to the High Court (Single Judge)   with   a   request   to   decide   the   application afresh on merits in accordance with law keeping in view the aforementioned observations.

13. Having formed an opinion to remand the case in the light of our reasoning mentioned above, we do not consider it proper to go into the merits of the case.

14. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal succeeds    and  is  accordingly  allowed.  Impugned 5 order is set aside. The case is remanded to the High Court for its decision on merits uninfluenced by any of our observations in this order.

December 03, 2018  6
Mallappa Dead By Lrs. vs The Special Land Acquisition Officer

2. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in this appeal, it is necessary to set out the facts of the case hereinbelow.

8. By   impugned   judgment/order,   the   High   Court allowed   the   appeal   filed   by   the   State   in   part   and reduced   the   rate   of   compensation   to   Rs.10250/­   per Gunta   from   Rs.21,000/­   per   Gunta   fixed   by   the Reference Court. The High Court fixed the market rate at Rs.14,500/­ per Gunta and deducting 30% towards development charges fixed at Rs.10,250/­ per Gunta. As a consequence, the appeal filed by the landowners 4 was   dismissed   which   has   given   rise   to   filing   of   this appeal  by   way   of   special  leave by   the landowners in this Court.

20. In other words, we hold and accordingly fix the market value of the land in question at the rate of Rs. 18,900/­   per Gunta for payment of compensation to the appellants for their land. The appellants are also entitled   to   get   other   statutory   compensation   payable under the Act, which is now to be re­calculated on the basis of the market rate fixed by this Court.

21. The respondents   are accordingly directed to re­ calculate   the   compensation   amount   payable   to   the 9 appellants in the light of the market rate fixed by this Court,   i.e.,   Rs.18,900/­  per  Gunta   and  after  making proper   verification   pay   to   the   appellants   the   total compensation within 3 months.

22. In   view   of   the   foregoing   discussion,   the   appeal succeeds and is accordingly allowed. Impugned order is set aside.

In Civil Appeal No.1573 of 2018 This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 17.07.2017 passed by the High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench in M.F.A. No.24071 of 2011   whereby   the   High   Court   dismissed   the   appeal filed by the appellants herein and reduced the rate of compensation   to   10,250/­   per   Gunta   from Rs.21,000/­ per Gunta on the grounds of parity which was   granted   to   the   adjacent   land   in   question   in S.No.44 in LAC No.58/1987.

10 In view of the order passed above in C.A. No.6057 of 2012, this appeal is disposed of on the same terms.

December 03, 2018 11
Meera Mishra vs Satish Kumar

3. The   issue   involved   in   this   appeal   is   short   as would be clear from the facts stated infra.

4. The dispute relates to a fair price shop at Gram Panchayat   Ambaghat,   Block   Godalamau,   Tehsil Mishrit District Sitapur (UP).   It is between the two private   individuals,   namely,   the   appellant   and respondent   No.   1   herein.   Both   are   asserting   their respective rights to run the shop.

14. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal succeeds and is accordingly allowed in part. The case is remanded to the Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow   (UP)   for   deciding   the   appeals   afresh   on merits.

15. The   appeals   bearing   Nos.38/2006­07   and 651/2006­2007   are   accordingly   restored   to   their respective numbers on the file of the Commissioner for their disposal in accordance with law on merits.

16. The   appellant   and   respondent   No.1   both   will appear   before   the   Commissioner,   Lucknow   on   14 th December,   2018   and   file   a   copy   of   this   Order.   The Commissioner   will   then   fix   any   suitable   date   for hearing   the   appeals   and   on   that   day   will   hear   the appellant,   respondent   No.1   and   the   concerned department   of   the   State,   and   after   hearing   all   the parties will pass a reasoned order on all the issues arising   in   this   case   relating   to   fair   price   shop   in question uninfluenced by any observations made by the High Court and this Court.

17. Parties   are   permitted   to   file   additional documents, if any, in support of their case before the Commissioner in appeals.   Let   the   proceedings   be over   within   three   months   from   the   date   of appearance of the parties.

December 03, 2018  8
Masroor Ahmad Khan vs The State Of Uttarakhand

3. In   order   to   appreciate   the   short   controversy involved   in   these   appeals,   few   facts   need   to   be mentioned hereinbelow.

4. Respondent Nos.3 and 4 are the Nagar Palika Parishad,   Nainital   (hereinafter   referred   to   as   “the Nagar Palika”).  In 1990, the Nagar Palika issued an advertisement   to   auction   their   residential   quarter Nos.6 and 7 situated at Waverly Compound (Gopala Sadan)   Mallital,   Naintal.   So   far   as   this   case   is concerned, it relates to quarter No. 6.

18. We,   therefore,   enquired   from   the   lawyers representing   the   parties   as   to   what   is   the approximate area of quarter No. 6 and what would be its monthly rent that it could fetch in the market during the period in question.

19.   Having heard their views, we have formed an opinion that the appellant should be made liable to pay   Rs.3000/­   per   month   to   the   Nagar   Palika   by way   of   damages   for   the   use   and   occupation   of quarter No. 6 from June 1990 till he handovers its vacant   possession.   The   sum   which   we   have   fixed balances   the   rights   and   equities   between   the parties.

20. The appellant is granted three months’ time to vacate quarter No. 6 situated at Waverly Compound (Gopala   Sadan)   from   the   date   of   this   order.   The appellant   is   further   directed   to   pay   to   the   Nagar Palika (respondent No.3 herein) the damages for use 8 and occupation of the quarter No.6 from June 1990 (the   month  when  he occupied the  quarter) till the date he vacates the quarter in terms of this order within three months.

21. The   damages   be   calculated   at   the   rate   of Rs.3000/­   per   month   from   June   1990   till   the delivery of possession.

22. In case the appellant fails to vacate the quarter and fails to pay the damages, it would be construed as non­compliance of this Court's order and in that eventuality the Nagar Palika would be at liberty to move   to   this   Court   against   the   appellant   for appropriate order.

24. The appeal stands accordingly finally disposed of.

December 03, 2018  9
M/S. Simplex Infrastructure Ltd. vs Union Of India

2. The appellant, who is a contractor, entered into an agreement for the construction of 821 units of permanent shelters in the tsunami-hit Andaman and Nicobar Islands with the Union of India, represented by the Executive Digitally signed by R NATARAJAN Engineer, Andaman Central Division, Central PWD, Port Blair. 2 The scope of Date: 2018.12.05 17:07:05 IST Reason: 1 The High Court delivered judgment on 27 April 2016. 2 The date of the agreement is 5 January 2006 2 work involved the construction of single storied permanent shelters, including internal water supply, sanitary installation and internal electrification. Due to differences with regard to the performance of the construction work, the parties were referred to arbitration. On 27 October 2014, the arbitrator made an award in favour of the appellant and directed the respondent to pay a sum of ₹9,96,98,355/- with simple interest @ 10% per annum from 1 January 2009 till actual payment. The respondent received the copy of the award on 31 October 2014.

5. On 28 March 2016, the respondent filed an application5 under Section 34 before the High Court of Calcutta for challenging the arbitral award dated 27 October 2014, along with an application6 for condonation of a delay of 514 days. The respondent justified the delay on ground of there being a bona fide mistake in filing the application before the wrong forum and the respondent’s counsel causing delay due to which necessary formalities were not complied with within the prescribed time.

16 Under the circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that in view of the period of limitation prescribed in Section 34(3), the learned Single Judge of the High Court was not justified in condoning the respondent’s delay of 514 days in filing the application. The judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Calcutta on 27 April 2016, in GA No. 958 of 2016 is set aside and the appeal is allowed. The petition under Section 34 stands 14 dismissed on the ground that it is barred by limitation. There shall be no order as to costs.

.....................................................J [Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud] .....................................................J [Vineet Saran] New Delhi;

December 05, 2018
Vivek Mudgil vs State Of U.P

2. Leave granted in Special Leave Petitions.

4. The Board has issued an advertisement on 03.03.2002 inviting applications for appointment to the post of Principal. The last date for submission of applications was 30.03.2002. The qualifications prescribed were – (i) the possession of a Post Graduate degree from an institution or a university established in accordance with law; and (ii) possession of a training qualification, namely, B.Ed. L.T., B.T. and B.P.Ed. The advertisement contained a stipulation requiring teaching experience of ten years in intermediate classes of any recognised institution together with a post graduate degree in the first or second class or a teaching experience of fifteen years for a candidate possessing post graduate degree in the third class.

12. For the aforesaid reasons, these appeals are dismissed and consequently the transferred case also stands disposed of. However, the issue, whether the respondent-authorities are empowered to grant any order of exemption in exercise of powers under proviso to Section 16-E(3) of the 1921 Act, after enforcement of the provisions of the 1982 Act is left open. If any such need arises, it is open for the parties to approach the High Court in which event such issue is to be decided independently uninfluenced by the order of the High Court and this Court.
S.C. Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand .

and (ii) A stenographer. An advertisement inviting applications for the above posts was issued on 06 January 1992. The Appellant was appointed as Director, CDC through open selection by an office order dated 02 November 1992 of the Second Respondent. On 23 January 1996, the Appellant was permanently absorbed. 4 In 2003, the University shifted the office of the CDC from Srinagar to Dehradun. The Appellant filed a writ petition5 before the High Court of Uttarakhand 2 Hemwati Nandan Bahuguna Garhwal University, Srinagar 3 CDC 4 UGC 5 Writ Petition (SB) No 7 of 2006 3 challenging the order of transfer. On 09 December 2005, the University transferred the Appellant to the Swami Ramtirth Campus, New Tehri. On 30 June 2006, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the Appellant and he was suspended. The order of suspension was stayed on an interim application in the above writ petition, on 10 July 2006. On 19 July 2006, the High Court of Uttarakhand disposed of the writ petition by revoking the suspension, subject to the Appellant joining service at Srinagar. However, the disciplinary proceedings were not stayed.

13 The Appellant, who was appointed on 02 November 1992, has admittedly served out the tenure as Director, CDC of two terms of three years each. We are in agreement with the High Court that having served the tenure laid down by the revised guidelines, the Appellant cannot continue as Director, CDC. 14 For these reasons, we see no reason to interfere with the judgment of the High Court. The appeal shall stand dismissed. In view of the appeal being dismissed, the contempt petition does not survive. There shall be no order as to costs.

........................................................J [U U Lalit] .......................................................J [Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud] New Delhi;

December 05, 2018
Lajpat vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh

3. Few facts need mention infra to appreciate the short controversy involved in this appeal.

13.  We, therefore, find ourselves unable to concur with   such   disposal   of   the   application   by   the   High Court  and   feel  inclined to set aside the  impugned order and remand the case to the High Court (Single Judge)   with   a   request   to   decide   the   application afresh on merits in accordance with law keeping in 5 view the aforementioned observations after issuing notice to respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

14. Having formed an opinion to remand the case in the light of our reasoning, we do not consider it proper to go into the merits of the case.

15. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal succeeds   and   is   accordingly   allowed.   Impugned order is set aside. The case is remanded to the High Court for its decision on merits uninfluenced by any of our observations in this order after notice to the respondents.

December 06, 2018  6
Gopal Singh (Dead) Through Lrs. vs Swaran Singh

5. The trial court, by recording the finding that respondent-plaintiffs are bonafide purchasers, has decreed the suit by declaring the order dated 28.03.1985 passed by the competent authority under the provisions of the Act as 3 C.A.@ SLP(C)No.27108/18 null and void and granted consequential relief of injunction restraining the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiffs from the suit land.

1 1986 (1) PLR 222 9 C.A.@ SLP(C)No.27108/18

14. For the aforesaid reasons we allow this appeal and set aside the judgment and order dated 16.02.2018 passed in R.S.A.No.1163 of 1991 and consequently the Civil Suit No.496 of 1985 stands dismissed, with no order as to costs.

[R. Subhash Reddy] New Delhi December 07, 2018 10
Apsrtc vs K. Sathaiah

3. The facts leading to the present appeal are as under :

The grant of continuity was not sustainable for the simple reason that unless the order of termination and of the fresh appointment were challenged and adjudicated upon, seniority would necessarily have to count with effect from the date of the fresh appointment. As a matter of first principle, continuity can be granted when an order of termination is set aside, to ensure that there is no hiatus in service.

13. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we allow this appeal and accordingly set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 11.06.2013 of the Division Bench as well as the judgment and order dated 18.07.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge.

14. The seniority of the respondent workman shall be counted with effect from the date of his fresh appointment in the service of the Corporation.

15. The appeal is accordingly allowed to the aforesaid extent. No costs.
Ganesh Sukhdeo Gurule vs Tahsildar Sinnar

3. The brief facts of the case necessary for deciding the appeal are:

8. The   main   issue   which   arises   for   consideration   is that   what   shall   be   two­third   majority   for   holding   the no­confidence   motion   to   be   passed   in   the   Panchayat   in the   facts   of   the   present   case.   Admittedly   there   are nine   members   in   the   Village   Panchayat.   Out   of   nine members   in   the   meeting   held   on   14.09.2018,   eight members were present. Out of eight members present, one member   was   disqualified   to   sit   and   vote   by   virtue   of she   having   not   submitted   her   caste   certificate   after the election. She was one out of six members who have voted   in   favour   of     no­confidence   motion.   There   are five valid votes in favour of   no­confidence motion as two   against   it.   The   statute   provides   for   special majority   for   passing   a   motion.   The  Shackleton  on   the “Law and Practice of Meetings” in paragraph 7.32 while dealing with special majority states:

18. We are, thus, of the view that no­confidence motion was   not   validly   passed   and   the   order   of   the   Addl. Collector as well as of the High Court are erroneous. It is held that motion of no­confidence was not passed against the appellant since it was not passed by less than two­third of the total number of the members who were for the time being entitled to sit and vote. The 18 proceedings   dated   14.09.2018,   order   of   the   Addl. Collector   approving   the   proceedings   as   well   as   the judgment of the High Court dismissing the writ petition are set aside. The appeal is allowed accordingly.
Union Of India And Anr. vs V.R. Tripathi

3. The father of the respondent, Ramlakhan Tripathi was employed as a Technician, Grade-I in Central Railways at Mumbai. He died in harness on 28 November 2009. The deceased employee had contracted a second marriage during the subsistence of his first marriage. The respondent is the son born from the second marriage of the employee. The second marriage, as it appears, was contracted in 1987. The respondent applied for compassionate appointment on the death of his father. The application was rejected on 6 March 2012 by the Railway Authorities. Aggrieved by the denial of compassionate appointment, the respondent moved an Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal having held in favour of the respondent and upon the dismissal of a petition seeking review, the Union of India and the Railway Authorities instituted writ proceedings before the Bombay High Court.

4. In support of the writ petition, the appellants relied upon a circular of the Railway Board dated 2 January 1992. The said circular is extracted below:

6. Principally on the above foundation, the High Court found no reason to differ with the view of the Central Administrative Tribunal and observed that the direction to the railway authorities was only to consider the case of the respondent for compassionate appointment on its merits.

7(2016) 5 CTC 50 82017 Lab. IC (NOC 237) 69 9SLP(C) arising out of Diary No.27352 of 2017 14

21. For the above reasons, we do not find any merit in the appeal. The authorities shall take a decision in terms of this judgment on the application for compassionate appointment in three months from today. The appeal stands dismissed. No costs.

CIVIL APPEAL No.12016 OF 2018 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.34830/2016)

22. Leave granted.

23. In view of the judgment delivered today in companion Civil Appeal No.12015 of 2018 and since the second marriage was in any event permissible under Muslim Personal Law, there is no merit in the appeal. The authorities shall be entitled to scrutinize whether the application for compassionate appointment fulfills all other requirements, in accordance 15 with law. The process of consideration of the application shall be completed within a period of three months from today.

24. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs.