L-NLProc/TathyaNyaya-and-FactLegalLlama-NyayaScrape-Datasets huggingface dataset:
Supriya Suresh Patil @ Sow Supriya ... vs The State Of Maharashtra

2. The appellant is aggrieved since her application for compassionate appointment was declined by Respondent No. 3. The appellant was unsuccessful before the High Court.

5. The needful shall be done by the respondents within one month from today.

6. The impugned Judgment will stand modified accordingly. The appeal is disposed of as above.

No costs.

The civil appeal is 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)
Mahesh Chandra Verma vs The State Of Jharkhand State Of ...

2. The question of law arising as aforesaid, it is not necessary to delve into the facts of each case. Thus, only the facts which are relevant for the determination of this question are being set out. The Jharkhand State was carved out from the State of Bihar under the Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000 on 25.11.2000. Soon thereafter the Jharkhand High Court, respondent No.2, issued an advertisement on 23.5.2001 to fill up the vacancies for the post of Additional District Judges in the Jharkhand Superior Judicial Service. The appellants also took part in the recruitment process and post conduct of examination and interview, a select list was prepared of 27 candidates, who were eligible for appointment to the Superior Judicial Service. None of the appellants, however, figured in the final select list. A parallel 2 development was the allocation by the 11th Finance Commission of Rs.502.90 crores under Article 275 of the Constitution of India, for the establishment of courts described as the Fast Track courts.1,734 courts in various States were envisaged to deal with long-pending cases, specifically, Sessions cases. The funds allocated by the Finance Commission were to be utilized in a time bound schedule of five years, and the State Governments were required to take necessary steps to establish such courts.

10. The appellants were aggrieved on account of them being treated as fresh recruits and requested for benefits of pay protection and other benefits of continuance of service. This request was, however, rejected by the State Government. This resulted in the writ petitions being filed in the High Court where some interim protection was granted but ultimately, the writ petitions have been dismissed by the common impugned order dated 14.10.2015.

18. We are, thus, unhesitatingly and unequivocally of the view that all the appellants and Judicial Officers identically situated are entitled to the benefit of the period of service rendered as Fast Track court Judges to be counted for their length of service in determination of their pension and retiral benefits.

19. The appeals are accordingly allowed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

May 11, 2018.
Bilquis vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors.

3. Brief facts leading to this appeal are as under: 2

towards compensation for orange trees (600 x 325 = 195,000);

b) the claimant/appellant shall be entitled to all statutory benefits including solatium and interest as per law.

13. The instant appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms. The judgment of the High Court is set aside accordingly. No order as to costs.

May 11, 2018.

Date : 11-05-2018 This petition was called on for Judgment today.

Leave granted.

The appeal is allowed.

Pending Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand disposed of.

(Signed non-reportable Judgment is placed on the file)
D.Subba Rao(D) By Lrs. . vs D.Sadashiva Rao .

3. Finding that there is a possibility of settlement, this Court requested the parties to explore the possibility of an amicable settlement, to which they willingly agreed. Accordingly, they were referred to the Bangalore Mediation Center. The Bangalore Mediation Center has forwarded a report dated 17.04.2018 along with Memorandum of Settlement Digitally signed by MAHABIR SINGH Date: 2018.05.19 dated 16.04.2018, duly signed by the Power of 13:07:13 IST Reason: Attorney Holders of the parties. We find that the disputes between the parties have been settled. The 2 Memorandum of Settlement shall form part of this Judgment.

5. In view of the above, the appeal is disposed of.

May 15, 2018.

Date : 15-05-2018 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR For Appellant(s) Mr. S. N. Bhat, AOR Mr. Priyank Jain, Adv.

Mr. Ravi Panwar, Adv.

The appeal is 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)
State Of Haryana vs Parveen Kumar Etc

(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 24-02-2016 in RFA No. 219/2015 24-02-2016 in RFA No. 3861/2014 24-02-2016 in RFA No. 3863/2014 24-02-2016 in RFA No. 3864/2014 24-02-2016 in RFA No. 3865/2014 24-02-2016 in RFA No. 3866/2014 24-02-2016 in RFA No. 3867/2014 24-02-2016 in RFA No. 3868/2014 24-02-2016 in RFA No. 3869/2014 24-02-2016 in RFA No. 3870/2014 24-02-2016 in RFA No. 3872/2014 24-02-2016 in RFA No. 3873/2014 24-02-2016 in RFA No. 3874/2014 24-02-2016 in RFA No. 3875/2014 24-02-2016 in RFA No. 3876/2014 24-02-2016 in RFA No. 3877/2014 24-02-2016 in RFA No. 3878/2014 24-02-2016 in RFA No. 3968/2014 24-02-2016 in RFA No. 3969/2014 24-02-2016 in RFA No. 3970/2014 24-02-2016 in RFA No. 3971/2014 24-02-2016 in RFA No. 3972/2014 24-02-2016 in RFA No. 3973/2014 24-02-2016 in RFA No. 3981/2014 24-02-2016 in RFA No. 3982/2014 24-02-2016 in RFA No. 3983/2014 24-02-2016 in RFA No. 3984/2014 24-02-2016 in RFA No. 4173/2014 24-02-2016 in RFA No. 4174/2014 24-02-2016 in RFA No. 4175/2014 passed by the High Court Of Punjab & Haryana At Chandigarh) STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUS PARVEEN KUMAR ETC Respondent(s) WITH Diary No(s). 21880/2017 (IV-B) Date : 16-05-2018 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR For Petitioner(s) Dr. Monika Gusain, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Sameer Singh, Adv.

3. These appeals are also disposed of in terms of the Judgment referred to above.

May 16, 2018.

Dr. Sushil Balwada, AOR Mr. R. K. Kapoor, Adv.

Ms. Kheyali, Adv.

Mr. Rajat Kapoor, Adv.

The 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)
Vaijnath Kondiba Khandke vs The State Of Maharashtra

3. One Kishor Parashar serving in the office of the Deputy Director of Education Aurangabad, committed suicide on 08.08.2017 in his house. His wife made a complaint to the police that her husband was suffering from mental torture as his higher officers were getting heavy work done from her husband which required him to work from 10.00 am to 10.00 pm; that her husband would be called at odd hours and even on holidays to get the work done; that officer named Vaijnath Kondiba Khandke (the appellant) had stopped his salary for one month and was threatening her husband that his increment would be stopped; that one of the co-worker named Ghorpade Madam used to get her work done from her husband; that because of the pressure of work her husband used to remain silent and that these two persons were responsible for the suicide committed by her husband. Pursuant to the aforesaid reporting, FIR No.268 of 2017 dated 09.08.2017 was registered against the appellant and one Vidya Ghorpade under Sections 306, 506 read with Section 34 IPC with Police Station MIDC, CIDCO, Aurangabad.

4. The appellant as well as said Vidya Ghorpade filed Criminal Application Nos.4724 of 2017 and 5174 of 2017 respectively under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the aforesaid FIR. It was submitted that 3 the allegations in the FIR were absurd and inherently improbable and did not make out any case against the applicants. Around this time, the applications preferred by the applicants for anticipatory bail were accepted with certain conditions. The applications preferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C. were thereafter taken up for hearing. The High Court accepted the plea made by Vidya Ghorpade and quashed the proceedings against her. However, Criminal Application No.4724 of 2017 preferred by the appellant was dismissed by the High Court vide its judgment and order dated 23.01.2018 which is presently under appeal. It was observed:

The allegations in the FIR are completely inadequate and do not satisfy the requirements under Section 306 IPC. In our view, the facts in the present case stand on a footing better than that in Madan Mohan Singh (supra) and there is absolutely no room for invoking provisions of Section 306 IPC. We 6 are of the firm view that the interest of justice demands that the proceedings initiated against the appellant are required to be quashed.

9. We, therefore, allow this appeal and quash criminal case lodged in pursuance of FIR No.268 of 2017 registered with Police Station MIDC, CIDCO, Aurangabad.
Santosh Kumar Mishra vs Neeru Mishra

2. The appellant approached this Court, aggrieved by the reversal of the decree of nullity granted to him by the trial court. When the matter came up before this Court, the parties agreed for a mediation before the Supreme Court Mediation Center. We are happy to note that the parties have arrived at an amicable settlement. The settlement agreement dated 14.05.2018, duly signed by the parties and their respective counsel and also the learned mediator, is taken on record and shall form part of this Judgment. 

5. The following cases are dismissed:

7. In view of the above, this appeal is disposed of.

May 17, 2018.

Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 2899 of 2018 SANTOSH KUMAR MISHRA Appellant(s) VERSUS NEERU MISHRA Respondent(s) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.6037/2018-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING SLP and IA No.6041/2018-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING SLP) Date : 17-05-2018 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR For Appellant(s) Mr. Kislay Pandae, Adv.

Mr. Rabin Majumdar, Adv.

Mr. Joydeep Mukherjee, Adv.

Ms. Manju Jetley, AOR For Respondent(s) Dr. Vinod Kumar Tewari, AOR Mr. Baijnath Prasad Pathak, Adv. Mr. Vivek Tiwari, Adv.

Mr. Pankaj Kumar Singh, Adv.

Mr. Pramod Tiwari, Adv.

The appeal is 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)
Mahabir Industries vs Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax

6. As noted above, the assessee had carried out substantial expansion in the Assessment Year 2006-07 and, therefore, claimed exemption under Section 80-IC of the Act for Assessment Year 2006-07 onwards. Deductions for the year 2006-07 and 2007-08 were allowed. However, thereafter, deductions for the Assessment Year 2008-09 and Assessment Year 2009-2010 were rejected by the AO on the ground that this was 11 th and 12th year of deduction and as per Section 80-IC(6), total deductions under Civil Appeal No(s). 4765-4766 of 2018 & Anr. Page 5 of 15 Section 80-IC and Section 80-IB cannot exceed the total period of ten years. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) {CIT(A)} and Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) upheld the order of the AO. The High Court took up the appeals of the assessee along with other similar enterprises who had claimed the benefits. It framed the following question in those appeals:

8. As can be discerned, all other aspects are decided in favour of the assessees except what is illustrated at (i) and (iv). However, the effect thereof is that insofar as appeals of the assessee herein are concerned, they are dismissed on the ground that it cannot claim deduction under Sections 80-IC, 80-IB or 10C for a period exceeding ten years.

Civil Appeal No(s). 4765-4766 of 2018 & Anr. Page 12 of 15

14. Thus, we are of the opinion that it was wrong on the part of the AO not to allow deduction to the assessee under Section 80-IC for the Assessment Years 2008-09 and 2009-2010. As a result, the judgment of the High Court on this aspect is set aside and the appeals are accordingly allowed.

MAY 18, 2018.

Civil Appeal No(s). 4765-4766 of 2018 & Anr. Page 15 of 15
M/S. B. Himmatlal Agrawal Partner vs Competent Commission Of India

2. In order to decide this question, it is not necessary to take stock of the factual matrix in detail. Narration of the following facts, Digitally signed by SUSHIL KUMAR RAKHEJA Date: 2018.05.18 which are germane for deciding this appeal, would suffice. 17:05:51 IST Reason:

3. The appellant filed the statutory appeal thereagainst before the Appellate Tribunal which was registered as Competition Appeal (AT) No. 24/2017. The appellant also prayed for interim stay of the penalty order. Arguments were heard on admission as well as on stay. Vide orders dated November 20, 2017, Appellate Tribunal admitted the appeal. It also granted stay on the orders of the CCI with the condition of depositing 10% of the total penalty (i.e. a sum of Rs. 36,12,222/-) imposed by CCI, to be paid by the appellant, within two weeks i.e. by December 4, 2017. The appellant could not fulfill the said condition of deposit. When the matter was taken up on December 4, 2017, the appellant pleaded before the Appellate Tribunal that non-compliance because of financial crunch which the appellant was facing. The Appellate Tribunal, however, passed orders dated December 4, 2017 to the following effect:

4. As per the appellant, since it was in deep financial trouble, it could not deposit the amount by December 20, 2017 in spite of all bona fide intentions. The appellant accordingly filed I.A. No. 84 of 2017 on December 18, 2017 seeking modification of orders dated December 4, 2017. It was stated in the said application that it had incurred net loss of Rs.3,72,45,393.94 for the Financial Year 2016-17 and, therefore, was not in a position to deposit the said amount. The request of the appellant was, however, not acceded to and vide orders dated December 21, 2017, the Appellate Tribunal has dismissed I.A. No. 84 of 2017. At the same time, it has dismissed the appeal of the appellant as well for non- compliance of its order dated December 4, 2017. The order dated December 21, 2017 reads as under:

9. Accordingly, we allow this appeal and set aside that part of the impugned order whereby the appeal of the appellant is dismissed and restore the appeal which shall be decided by the Appellate Tribunal on merits. We, however, make it clear that as far as stay of the penalty order is concerned, that stood vacated for non- 1 Civil Appeal Nos. 4766-4767 of 2013 with Ors. decided on June 12, 2013 Civil Appeal No. 5029 of 2018 Page 8 of 9 compliance of the condition of deposit of 10% of the penalty and, thus, there is no stay of the CCI order in favour of the appellant.

No cost.

MAY 18, 2018.

Civil Appeal No. 5029 of 2018 Page 9 of 9
Lt. Col. Vijaynath Jha vs Union Of India And Others

11. The main relief, which was asked by the appellant before the Armed Forces Tribunal was to quash and set aside the order dated 17.12.2007 by which the complaint of the appellant was rejected by Central Government. The appellant had prayed for a direction to the respondents to grant permanent secondment in the DGQA Organization with all the consequential benefits retrospectively. The Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) has rejected the application of the appellant holding that it has no jurisdiction to 8 entertain the application. The Tribunal in Para 16 of the judgment has held that there is no breach of Army Act and the Army Rules and the Service HQ had no role in grant of second tenure of permanent secondment of any Army Officer in the DGQA Organisation. Further, the terms and conditions of the Service Officers in DGQA is not creation of the Army Act or the Army Rules.

16. The above judgment has been referred to and relied by the Tribunal.

34. From the aforesaid, the legal position that emerges is that AFT shall have jurisdiction (i) to hear appeals arising out of courts martial verdicts qua GREF personnel. To this extent alone AFT shall have jurisdiction. At the same time, if the punishment is imposed on GREF personnel by way of departmental proceedings held under the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 the same cannot be agitated before AFT; and (ii) AFT shall have no jurisdiction to hear and decide grievances of GREF personnel relating to their terms and conditions of service or alternatively put “service matters”.

27. The above provision has no application in facts of the present case. Present is not a case where the appellant is claiming any privilege conferred on persons subject to Army Act or by any other law in force. Section 33, thus, has no application.

28. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of 25 the view that the Tribunal committed no error in holding that the application filed by the appellant was not maintainable before the AFT. AFT has returned the application of the applicant to take proceeding before competent authorities. In result, the appeal is dismissed.
Narendra Dev Univesity Of Agriculture ... vs Bhupendra Singh Rawat

2. According to the first respondent, he has been working as a Physical Instructor. Being thus in a teaching post, he is entitled to continue up to 62 years like other teachers. The High Court held in favour of the first respondent and thus, aggrieved, the appellant – University is before this Court.

4. The appellants are granted a period of two weeks to implement this order. Needless to say, the 2 contempt proceedings will stand recalled. Accordingly, the writ appeal now pending in the High Court has become infructuous and is accordingly, dismissed.

5. In view of the above, the appeal is disposed of, however, leaving the question of law is kept open.

Mr. Shantanu Sagar, AOR Mr. Anmol, Adv.

Mr. Nishant Kumar, Adv.

Mr. Jeevesh Prakash, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Sudeep Seth, Adv.

The appeal is 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)
K.S. Kalinga Rayan @ Kalingaraju vs State Rep. By The Inspector Of Police

3. In the nature of the order we propose to pass, it is not necessary to go into the factual matrix at this stage. The appellant had filed Criminal Appeal No.805/2011 before the High Court challenging his conviction and sentence as ordered in Special Calendar Case No.1/2011 on the file of Special Court for Prevention of Corruption, Coimbatore. Paragraph 6 of the impugned judgment reads as follows:-

5. However, having regard to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that it is only in the interest of justice that the appellant is given liberty to argue his case before the High Court, subject to imposition of costs.

6. Accordingly, the impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside and the appeal is allowed.

8. The appellant is directed to pay costs to the tune of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only), to the Deaf-and-Dumb School, Thanjavur, run by the Government, which can be utilized for better amenities to the children.

9. We make it clear that since we have set aside the judgment, the interim order of suspension granted by the High Court at the time of admission of the criminal appeal will stand revived and would continue to operate till the appeal is disposed of by the High Court.

10. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.

MAY 18, 2018.
Medical Council Of India vs Vedantaa Institute Of Academic ...

4. The High Court allowed the Writ Petition filed by Respondent No.1 and 2 mainly on two grounds. According to the High Court, Regulation 8 (3) (1) proviso (a) of the Establishment of Medical College Regulations, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations) is not applicable to the case of Respondent No.1 and 2. The relevant portion of Clause 8 (3) (1) is extracted as under:-

Further admissions shall not be made at any stage unless the requirements of the Council are fulfilled. The Central Government may at any stage convey the deficiencies to the applicant and provide him an opportunity and time to rectify the deficiencies. Note: In above clause, “six months” shall be substituted by “as per latest time schedule” PROVIDED that in respect of a) Colleges in the stage of Letter of Permission upto II renewal (i.e. admission of third batch) If it is observed during any inspection/assessment of the institute that the deficiency of teaching faculty and/or Residents is more than 30% and/or bed occupancy is <50% (45% in North East, Hilly terrain, etc.), compliance 5 of rectification of deficiencies from such an institute will not be considered for issue of Letter of Permission (LOP)/renewal of permission in that Academic Year.”

10. On perusal of the material on record, we are of the opinion that the conclusion reached by the High Court regarding the manner in which inspection was conducted is also not correct. Bed occupancy at 45.30 per cent on random verification was the claim of Respondent No.1 and 2. However, the inspection report shows that out of required minimum of 300 patients only 3 were available at 10.00 am on 25th September, 2017. This Court in Kalinga (supra) has held that medical education must be taken very seriously and when an expert body certifies that the facilities in a medical College are inadequate, it is not for the Courts to interfere with the assessment, except for very cogent jurisdictional reasons such as mala fides of the inspection team, ex facie perversity in the inspection, jurisdictional error on the part of the M.C.I., etc. The submission relating to the cyclone being a reason for the number of patients being less is not acceptable. We are in agreement with the submission made on behalf of the Appellant that the Resident Doctors are required to be in the hospital at all points of time.

11. In view of the large scale deficiencies found in the inspection report dated 25.09.2017 and 26.09.2017 and in view of Regulation 8 (3) (1) (a), the Respondent No.1 and 2 are not entitled to claim another inspection.

12. For the aforementioned reasons, the judgment of the High Court is set aside and the Appeal is allowed.

..............................................J [L. NAGESWARA RAO] ...............................................J [MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR] NEW DELHI;

JUNE 01, 2018 13