L-NLProc/TathyaNyaya-and-FactLegalLlama-NyayaScrape-Datasets huggingface dataset:
Jambir Mahato vs State Of West Bengal

1. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 21.2.1999 at about 11 a.m., when the prosecutrix was returning to her house after working in the brickfield of Mahadeb Bera, then near Laltanrd jungle, appellant-accused came from behind on a cycle, molested her, put his napkin (gamchha) inside her mouth and forcibly raped her. Appellant-accused also threatened her not to disclose the matter to anyone; otherwise he would kill all her family members. After returning to her house, the prosecutrix narrated the incident to her sister (P.W.5) who, in turn, narrated it to their mother (P.W. 2). PW. 2 waited for her husband (PW 4) to return and after informing him, she went to the police station with the prosecutrix and lodged an F.I.R. against the appellant-accused.

2. Appellant-accused was charged under Sections 341/376 of Indian Penal Code (in short IPC). By the judgment and order dated 27.3.2003, the Sessions Judge, Purulia found the appellant-accused guilty and sentenced him to suffer R.I. for ten years for the commission of offence under Section 376 IPC and for the charge under Section 341 IPC, he was sentenced to suffer R.I. for six months.

3. Appellant-accused filed an appeal before the High Court challenging his conviction passed by the Sessions Judge. The High Court, by the impugned judgment dated 29.11.2005, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the sentence of the appellant-accused.

4. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment of the High Court, the appellant-accused has preferred the present appeal by special leave.

6. The statement of prosecutrix has been corroborated by the F.I.R. lodged by her in the police station and also by her sister PW 5 Putibala Paramanik to whom the entire incident was narrated by the prosecutrix immediately.

7. We have minutely gone through the judgment delivered by the Sessions Judge as well as that of the High Court. We do not find any infirmity in the judgment of the Sessions Judge and th impugned judgment delivered by the High Court confirming the sentence of the appellant. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
New India Assurance Company Ltd vs Ramila & Ors

JUDGMENT O R D E R CIVIL APPEAL Nos.4743-4744 OF 2001 These appeals are directed against the order passed by the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court whereby the learned Division Bench of the High Court vide order dated 4/1/2000 dismissed the appeals filed by the Insurance Company and allowed the cross objections filed by the claimants and awarded full compensation to the claimants. Necessary facts for the disposal of these appeals are that on 15th July, 1989 Vimal Kumar was going on his scooter with Rameshchand as pillion rider. When they reached near village Tikdijogi, non-applicant/respondent came from opposite direction driving bus No. M.B.N.- 1188 belonging to non-applicant No.2 Kanhaiyalal and insured with appellant New India Assurance Co. in a rash and negligent manner dashed against scooter, as a result of which Vimal Kumar and Rameshchand died. The LRs of Rameshchand claimed compensation of Rs.15,02,180/-, while LRS of deceased Vimal Kumar sought compensation to the extent of Rs.7,61,000/- in claim case Nos. 83/89 and 101/89 respectively. The appellant and non-applicants/respondents filed common written statements and resisted the claim. The plea taken was that Vimal Kumar had no valid driving licence. He was driving scooter in a rash and negligent manner which caused the accident. No plea of the limited liability was taken in the written statement by the insurance company. The tribunal after appreciation of evidence granted compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- to the LRS of deceased Rameshchand and Rs.3,75,000/- to the LRS of Vimal Kumar and directed the Insurance Company as well as the driver and owner to pay the same jointly and severally.

Therefore, we dispose of these appeals and give liberty to the appellants to recover the excess amount paid by the insurance company by executing this award against the owner to the extent of such excess amount as per Section 174 of the Motor Vehicles Act, consequently, the appeals are disposed of with the above observations.

There will be no orders as to costs.
A. Manoharan And Ors vs Union Of India And Ors

3. Some of the employees were Diploma holders. They formed an Association known as Chennai Port Trust Diploma Engineers Association. In view of embargo placed by the Regulations on their promotional prospects as the educational qualification for holding of the post of Executive Engineers had been laid down, they made a representation.

Provided that the Authority or the Board, as the case may be, shall be given opportunity to express its views before any direction is given under this sub-section.

(2) The decision of the Central Government whether a question is one of policy or not shall be final.

[(2004) 2 SCC 297]. Such office orders must be subservient to the statutory rules.

17. The High Court, therefore, committed a serious error in issuing the impugned directions. It also committed a serious error in holding that the Review Petition was not maintainable at the instance of the appellants.

18. For the reasons aforementioned, the impugned judgments cannot be sustained. They are set aside accordingly. The appeals are allowed with costs payable by the Madras Port Trust. Counsels fee assessed at Rs. 25,000/-.
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd vs Jashuben & Ors

2. Claimants-Respondents herein are heirs and legal representatives of Davjibhai Kushalbhai Rathod. He, while travelling in a mini luxury bus as a passenger from Surat to Mehsana, met with a road accident which took place on 23.6.1994. The accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the said mini bus is not question.

3. The deceased, Devjibhai, at that time, was aged about 35 years. He was working as an Assistant in the Oil and Natural Gas Commission. A sum of Rs.12,00,000/- was initially claimed by way of compensation which was subsequently raised to 25,00,000/-. The Tribunal, as per the certificate issued by the Senior Personnel and Administrative Officer, ONGC, noticed that the deceased had been receiving the following salaries and perks in the month of June 1994 :

4. However, the Tribunal also took into consideration the salary which might have been payable to the said deceased as in August, 2002; had he continued in service which was stated to be as under :

6. Interest on the said amount sum at the rate of 12 per cent was also awarded.

7. On an appeal preferred by the appellant thereagainst, a Division Bench of the High Court opined that as a revision of pay had been effected by ONGC from 1.1.1997 and in August 2002, the employees in the same cadre would have received a sum of Rs.10,693/- per month with Dearness Allowance at the rate of 35.5% amounting to Rs.3892/- and other allowances. The net income of the deceased was found to be at least a sum of Rs.16,000/- so as to enable the Tribunal to come to the conclusion that the loss of dependency benefit would come to Rs.16,000/- from January 1997 onwards. The High Court stated :

26. The loss of dependency, in our opinion, should be calculated on the basis as if the basic pay of the deceased been Rs. 3295/- X 2 = Rs. 6,590/-, thereto should be added 18.5% dearness allowance which comes to Rs.1219/-, child education allowance for two children @ Rs.240/- X 2 = Rs.480 and child bus fair Rs.160 X 2 = Rs.320/- should have been added which comes to Rs.8,609/-.

13. We are of the opinion that no interference therewith is warranted. We furthermore do not intend to interfere with the rate of interest in the facts and circumstance of the case.

29. The appeal is allowed in part and to the extent mentioned hereinbefore. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd vs Esi Corporation

Background facts :

4. By a letter dated 8.3.1993 the said prayer was rejected by the competent authority of the respondent, stating :

18. It appears that the determining authority did not give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in regard to the names and other particulars of the contractors. The impugned judgment, therefore, cannot be sustained. It is set aside accordingly. The appeal is allowed and the matter is remitted to the ESI Corporation/determination authority for considering the matter afresh. The authority shall either implead the contractors as parties and/or summon them for producing necessary records for the said purpose. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd vs Sorumai Gogoi & Ors

2. Bipul Gogoi was appointed as a Driver of a vehicle bearing Registration No.AS-09/2289 by the third respondent. He reported to his duty at about 9.30 am on 9.10.1996. He was since then not heard by the members of his family or by his employer.

3. The Officer In-charge of the Bokajan Police Station registered a case against Bipul Gogoi. A charge-sheet was filed in connection with the said case before the Judicial Magistrate stating that the Driver has absconded with the vehicle on 23.7.1999.

4. First and second respondents herein, being the parents of the said Bipul Gogoi, filed an application under the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 (the 1923 Act) for payment of compensation for a sum of Rs.4,48,000/- before the Commissioner of Workmen Compensation, Golaghat for death of their son in course of his employment. Notices were issued to the appellant. It denied and disputed the said claim, inter alia, contending that no compensation in terms of the Workmen Compensation Act was payable, only on a presumption that the said Bipul Gogoi had died. The owner of the vehicle being the third respondent, however, contended that some miscreants have taken away the vehicle with the driver which could not be searched out by the Police.

6. The Commissioner awarded a sum of Rs.2,24,000/- against the appellant herein, opining :

21. Furthermore, the rights of the parties were required to be determined as on the date of the incident, namely, 9.10.1996. It is, therefore, difficult to hold that a subsequent event and that too by raising a presumption in terms of Section 108 of the Evidence Act can give rise to fructification of claim, save and except in very exceptional cases.
Rajasthan Krishi Vishva Vidhyalaya, ... vs Devi Singh

2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

3. Respondent in each case filed a writ petition praying for a direction to the present appellant to give benefit of regularization on the post of Class IV employees and to give regular scale of pay with effect from the date from which persons junior to him were given benefit of regularization and regular pay scale. Prayer was also made to declare Sections 7, 9, 11 and 19 of the Act to be ultra vires to the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short the 'Constitution').

4. The High Court placing reliance on an earlier judgment in Bhawani Singh and Ors. v. State and Ors. (2002 (3) Western Law cases 728) declared Sections 9, 11 and 19 as ultra vires and directed the appellant to consider the case of the writ petitioner in each case for regularization in the light of aforesaid judgment and if found eligible to consider his case for regularization with effect from the date on which any other person junior to him had been granted the same benefits.

8. The appeals are allowed to the aforesaid extent with no order as to costs.
Ramesh Dass vs Raghu Nath And Ors

All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. It was directed that in case the fine amount imposed was realized, an amount of Rs.20,000/- was to be paid as compensation to the informant Pindi Dass who was injured and also a sum of Rs.5,000/- was payable to Ramesh Dass another injured victim.

The accused persons filed an appeal and learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal reduced the sentence under Section 326 read with section 149 IPC to three years but upheld all other sentences and the fine imposed by the trial Court. The accused persons filed criminal revision before the High Court for quashing the judgment and order of conviction of the trial Court. As noted above, the State of Haryana filed an appeal for enhancement of the sentence and informant also filed a revision application. The High Court dismissed the Criminal Appeal of the State and Criminal Revision of the injured for enhancement of sentence but modified the judgment of courts below and directed release of the accused persons on probation under Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the 'Code') and enhanced the amount of fine to Rs.15,000/- each and directed 50% shall be payable to the injured Pindi Dass. It is to be noted that in the meantime Pindi Dass has died.

11. In view of what has been stated above, Section 360 of the Code has no application to the facts of the present case. The High Court seems to have lost sight of the correct position in law.

13. The appeals are allowed with no order as to costs.
Imamuddin & Anr vs Mond. Ismail & Anr

Thereafter, the appellants demanded rent from the respondents and on their refusal to pay rent, they filed a suit for eviction of the respondents herein. In the said suit, the Trial Court determined the interim rent payable by the respondents, which was affirmed by the First Appellate Court. Against the said fixation of interim rent by the Trial Court, which was affirmed by the First Appellate Court, the respondents herein moved a Revision Petition before the High Court. Since, the revision petition was not maintainable before the High Court, the appellants have moved this Court by the present appeal.

We make it clear that the abovesaid arrangement has been made by us in order to decide the equities between the parties, as in the present case, the parties are seriously contesting the appeals against the order of refusal to grant a decree of specific performance and the refund of Rs.1,29,000/-to the appellants herein. We have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter but mentioned the facts only to decide the controversy at hand.

The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms. No order as to costs.
Manu Santosh & Anr vs K.Achutha Panicker & Ors

The parties hereto claim settlement from the original Inam holder Kali Pillai Gopala Pillai. Appellant(s) claim that the said Inam holder settled 43 cents out of 49 cents in Survey No.1983 of Madathuvilakom village in their favour. One Nani Devki predecessor in interest of the respondents(now represented by Lrs.being respondent Nos. 1-5) claimed that they were also the lessees of the said Inam holder.

The son of the original Inam holder Gopalan Pillai Velappan Nair(respondent No.9 herein) filed a suit for recovery of possession of the said property with arrears of rent against the appellant which was decreed. However, it appears that the execution petition to enforce the said decree was pending. Respondents herein claim that they had all along been in possession of the said property. In fact they obstructed execution of the said decree on 14.8.1971. According to the respondents the said suit was a collusive one. The said Act came into force with effect from 6.8.1981. Appointed date has been defined in the Act; meaning the date from which the said Act came into force. Indisputably, in terms of Section 3 of the Act, the Inam land vests in the Government. The Act provides for grant of settlement in favour of a person who may file an application therefor being in possession of the property. For obtaining settlement not only the appellant but also the said Nani Devki as also aforementioned Gopalan Pillai Velappan Nair filed their respective applications.

An inquiry was made by the Settlement Officer. It was held that up of March, 1981 the aforementioned Nani Devki was in possession but she was forcibly dispossessed by the appellant herein. However, the matter was remanded by the District Collector by an order dated 23.10.1987. Pursuant to or in furtherance of the said order dated 23.10.1987 a fresh inquiry was held and in its report the Settlement Officer -2- recorded that the property in question was in possession of the appellant herein as on the appointed date. The land in question was directed to be settled in favour of the appellant. Aggrieved by and dis-satisfied therewith Nani Devki preferred an appeal which was dismissed. The revision application filed before the State was also dismissed by an order dated 26.2.1990. Nani Devki filed a writ petition before the High Court. By reason of a deed of assignment executed on 6.11.1992, the property was transferred. On 16.3.1999, a learned Single Judge of the Kerala High Court allowed the writ petition. An intra Court appeal filed thereagainst has been dismissed by reason of the impugned judgment.

The impugned judgment is set aside. The appeals are allowed with the aforementioned observations.

Parties to maintain Status-Quo till the matter is decided by the Settlement Officer.
S.K. Alagh vs State Of U.P. & Ors

2. M/s. Akash Traders was an Area Wholesale dealer of Britannia Industries Limited (the Company) for Azamgarh, U.P. Dealership of Respondent No.2 was terminated by the said company. It was earlier informed that goods will be delivered only upon receipt of demand drafts issued by it. Complainant sent two demand drafts for a sum of Rs.18,000/- and Rs.1,50,000/- for supply of goods on 14.9.2000 despite the fact that the dealership had been terminated earlier.

3. The said demand drafts were sent to the appellant through the local Sales In-charge of the Company. It is stated that the complainant refused to take the same back.

5. A demand was made by the complainant to deliver goods by a letter dated 24.9.2000 stating that the company owes him a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-. The stand of the company that his dealership had been terminated was reiterated by a letter dated 25.9.2000.

6. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal, purported to be the proprietor of the firm M/s. Akash Traders, filed a complaint petition in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Azamgarh against the appellant herein for commission of an offence under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code. Britania Industries Ltd. was not impleaded as an accused therein.

7. On or about 17.2.2001, i.e., after filing of the complaint petition, the dealer accepted the said demand drafts being dated 8.1.2002 for a sum of Rs.1,68,000/-. On or about 25.2.2001, Ashok Kumar Aggarwal, the original complainant expired. A substitution application was filed by the second respondent-Alok Kumar Aggarwal on or about 19.4.2001.

15. Appellant No.1 is the Managing Director of the Company. Respondent No.3 was its General Manager. Indisputably, the company is a juristic person. The demand drafts were issued in the name of the company. The company was not made an accused. The dealership agreement was by and between M/s. Akash Traders and the company.

18. A criminal breach of trust is an offence committed by a person to whom the property is entrusted.

22. The High Court, therefore, committed a manifest error in passing the impugned judgment.

23. For the reasons aforementioned, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained. It is set aside accordingly. The appeal is allowed. Respondent No.2 is liable to bear the costs of the appellant for causing harassment to him which is quantified at Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lac only).
Ghaziabad Development Authority & Anr vs Ashok Kumar & Anr

3. Before the Labour Court, first respondent contended that since his date of recruitment, i.e., on and from 1.4.1988 till 9.4.1990, he continued to work. It, however, appears that his services had been dispensed with on 1.4.1990.

4. A Writ Petition was preferred thereagainst by the appellant before the Allahabad High Court. By reason of the impugned judgment, the said Writ Petition has been dismissed.

10. Furthermore, public interest would not be subserved if after such a long lapse of time, the first respondent is directed to be reinstated in service.

11. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the appellant should be directed to pay compensation to the first respondent instead and in place of the relief of reinstatement in service.

Keeping in view the fact that the respondent worked for about six years as also the amount of daily wages which he had been getting, we are of the opinion that the interest of justice would be subserved if the appellant is directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the first respondent. The said sum should be paid to the respondent within eight weeks from date, failing which the same shall carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. However, in the facts and circumstances of this case, there shall be no order as to costs.
G.M., B.S.N.L. & Ors vs Mahesh Chand

Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

By its award dated 29.9.2004 the Tribunal came to hold that the claim of the respondent was that he had worked for five hours a day and therefore was entitled to be regularized as a regular Safaiwala. Accordingly, it was held that termination of the respondent from service is illegal and he is entitled to be re-instated with continuity in service but without back wages.

11. Additionally, the specific stand of the appellants in the proceedings before the Tribunal and the High Court was that there is no sanctioned post of Safaiwala. There is no finding recorded by the Tribunal or the High Court that this stand is incorrect. Further, the respondent is also not consistent as to the period for which he worked. At one place he said he was working for five hours each day and other places he had stated that he was working for 8 hours. On the contrary, the appellant with reference to the nature of work done categorically stated that on a part time basis depending on the need and requirement the respondent was engaged for 2 to 3 hours periodically. Interestingly, the work that was being done by the respondent was also being done by his wife and his mother. Sometimes, no order of appointment was admittedly issued to the respondent. This fact is mis-conceived. In view of the aforesaid factual scenario, the award made by the Tribunal as affirmed by learned Single Judge and the Division Bench cannot be sustained and is set aside. The appeal is allowed with no order as to costs.
State Bank Of Patiala vs Manjeet

Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

Godown Keeper on compassionate grounds. On 23.3.1996 in exercise of power conferred by sub-Section (1) of Clause (O) of sub-Section (2) of Section 63 of the State Bank of India (Subsidiary Banks) Act, 1959 (in short the 'Act') the Regulations were framed. The Regulations provide for establishment and maintenance of pension funds for the benefit of the employees of the State Bank of Patiala. The regulations were published in the Official Gazette on 23.3.1996 and were operative w.e.f. 29.9.1995.

On 12.8.2003 respondent attained majority. On 16.9.2003 she applied for family pension of late Jai Singh. On 1.10.2003 the appellant-Bank rejected the claim for family pension on several grounds; (i) the family pension was payable to the widow till the death or her re-marriage and (ii) the option for pension was required to be made by eligible dependent of the deceased employee within 120 days from the notified date i.e. on or before 20.7.1996. Another representation was made on 28.10.2003. Again on 11.11.2003 the claim was rejected stating that since her mother was alive only she was eligible for grant of family pension provided she had completed the required formalities within the prescribed period.

3. A writ petition was filed for a direction to the appellant- Bank to give family pension to the respondent. The Division Bench, as noted above, allowed the writ petition holding that family pension was illegally denied to her.

7. Respondent's mother opted for her own pension and not for family pension.

Xx xx

10. Above being the position, the High Court was not justified in directing grant of family pension to the respondent. In view of above, the impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside. The appeal is allowed. There will be no order as to costs.