L-NLProc/TathyaNyaya-and-FactLegalLlama-NyayaScrape-Datasets huggingface dataset:
State Of Madhya Pradesh & Ors vs Marico Industries Ltd

2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are the respondent is a manufacturer of hair oil, edible oil, Mediker and Starch (Revive) and other products and is a registered dealer under the Madhya Pradesh Commercial Tax Act, 1994, as well as a dealer under the E.T. Act. The Assistant Commissioner, Commissioner Tax Division II, Indore vide order dated 28.04.2003 imposed entry tax on Mediker treating it as a hair shampoo and “Revive Instant Starch” as a chemical; and as the tax was not paid, interest and penalty were also levied. Being grieved by the aforesaid order the respondent-company preferred Review case No. 80/2003 before the Additional Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Indore. It was contended before the said authority that the entry tax imposed on the assessee on Mediker, which is meant for anti-lice treatment, was illegal being not permissible under any of the entries mentioned in Schedule II of the E.T. Act and there was no material on record to treat starch as a chemical. It was also urged that Mediker is a medicine and hence, it did not attract entry tax. The said submissions were repelled and tax was imposed and on that basis penalty and interest were also levied. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Indore, the assessee approached the High Court in Writ Petition No. 1198 of 2004 and the Division Bench referring to the charging Section and the Entries, came to hold that Mediker is basically a medicinal product and starch being not meant for sale but used in production of other articles, could not have been made amenable to entry tax, more so, in the absence of its mention in the Schedule. It was also held that starch is not a chemical.

19. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the inevitable conclusion is that the appeal is devoid of any substance and deserves to be dismissed and, accordingly, we so direct. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
Baby @ Sebastian & Anr vs Circle Inspector Of Police Adimaly

Brief facts of the case are stated hereunder to appreciate the rival legal contentions urged on behalf of the parties:

For the reasons stated supra, this criminal appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 09.06.2009 passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Criminal appeal No. 1898 of 2005 is set aside and the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court is restored. Both the accused-appellants are acquitted of all the charges levelled against them. Since both the appellants are in jail, the jail authorities are directed to release them forthwith if they are not required in connection with any other case.

Date : 26/07/2016 This appeal was called on for pronouncement of JUDGMENT today.

For Appellant(s) Mr. M. Karpaga Vinayagam, Sr. Adv.

Mrs. V.S. Lakshmi, Adv.

Mr. A. Venayagam Balan,Adv.

Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.Gopala Gowda pronounced the judgment of the Bench comprising His Lordship and Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.K. Agrawal.

The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed Non-Reportable judgment. Both the accused-appellants are acquitted of all the charges levelled against them. Since both the appellants are in jail, the jail authorities are directed to release them forthwith if they are not required in connection with any other case.

(Signed Non-Reportable judgment is placed on the file)
High Court Of Punjab & Haryana vs Jagdev Singh

2 The facts lie in a narrow compass. The Respondent was appointed as a Civil Judge (Junior Division) on 16 July 1987 and was promoted as Additional Civil Judge on 28 August 1997 in the judicial service of the State. By a notification dated 28 September 2001, a pay scale of Rs. 10000-325-15200 (senior scale) was allowed under the Haryana Civil Service (Judicial Branch) and Haryana Superior Judicial Service Revised Pay Rules 2001. Under the rules, each officer was required to submit an undertaking that any excess which may be found to have been paid will be refunded to the Government either by adjustment against future payments due or otherwise.

4 The Respondent was placed under suspension on 19 August 2002 and eventually, was compulsorily retired from service on 12 February 2003.

12 For these reasons, the judgment of the High Court which set aside the action for recovery is unsustainable. However, we are of the view that the recovery should be made in reasonable instalments. We direct that the recovery be made in equated monthly instalments spread over a period of two years.

13 The judgment of the High Court is accordingly set aside. The Civil Appeal shall stand allowed in the above terms. There shall be no order as to costs.

.......................................CJI [T S THAKUR] ..............................................J [Dr D Y CHANDRACHUD] New Delhi JULY 29, 2016.
State Of Up vs Ravindra @ Babloo

2. The assault took place on 10.01.2002 at about 4.30 PM. Two persons Mahendra Singh and Lokesh, who were father and son 2 respectively, have been deceased. PW­1, Smt. Mahendri, wife of deceased Mahendra Singh, is an injured eye witness. PW­3, the wife of deceased Lokesh is also an eye witness. Five persons were originally accused. One of the accused Satyendra @ Mintoo was deceased during the course of the trial. The three respondents were armed with spade, iron rod and country­made pistol respectively. The injuries found on the deceased and the injured PW­1 are as follows:

14. The order of the acquittal of the respondents is set aside and they are directed to surrender within four weeks for serving out the remaining period of their sentence. The appeal is allowed.
Cce,Ahmedabad vs M/S Gujarat Ambuja Exports Ltd

and M/s Aquagel Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. These customers had deposed that the PFAD bought by them from M/s GAEL had to undergo extensive further processing before it was converted into fatty acid. Shri Murali S. Mukerjee, DGM, M/s Godrej Industries Ltd. deposed that Industrial Fatty Acids were used in soaps and industrial surfactants, personal care and cosmetics, rubber and tyres, plastic, coating and links, textiles auxiliaries, fabric care and lubricants and greases etc. On being asked about the process involved in converting Palm Fatty Acid Distillate (PFAD) to stearic acid, he stated that firstly the Palm Fatty Acid Distillate (PFAD) was fed to oil pre-treatment plant for improvement on clarity and for removal of sediments and particles if any; the treated PFAD was then fed to fat splitting plant; in fat splitting plant, unconverted glycerides present in PFAD were converted into free fatty acids (crude fatty acid) and glycerine at a designed pressure; in the second step, crude fatty acid was hydrogenated with hydrogen in presence of nickel catalyst; in hydrogenation reaction all the double and triple bonds were converted into single bond; the hydrogen required for hydrogenation reaction was produced by steam reforming of natural gas; after hydrogenation reaction catalyst was removed by filtration in leaft type filter and colour was improved by bleaching with the activated carbon and diatomite earth in a bleacher, finally filtered and bleached hard fatty acid was homogenized and flaked as un- distilled stearic acid; in case of distilled stearic acid, hydrogenated fatty acid was distilled in distillation plant and distillate produced was homogenized and flaked as distilled stearic acid; PFAD could be used for the manufacturing of different types of fatty acid (stearic acid and fatty alcohol); PFAD could also be used for the manufacture of soaps.

On the basis of the aforesaid reasoning, the Tribunal has allowed the appeal of the assessee and set aside the order passed by the Commissioner.
B.H. Khawas vs Union Of India & Ors

2. Briefly stated, the appellant was appointed as “Chemical Examiner Grade–I” in the Customs and Central Excise Department in the pay scale of Rs. 3000-100-3500-125-4500, vide appointment letter dated 16th June, 1995, subject to fulfilling terms and conditions mentioned herein. As the appellant was appointed against the vacancy reserved for Scheduled Tribe, Condition (vii) of the said Appointment Letter is of some relevance. It reads thus:-

3. Before joining the post of Chemical Examiner in the Customs and Central Excise Department on 21st November, 1995, the appellant had worked in other Departments of the Government of India; on being selected through the Union Public Service Commission, to the post of “Senior Technical Assistant” in the Indian Bureau of Mines from 14.02.1985 to 12.05.1986; as an “Assistant Chemist (Group B Gazetted)” in the Geological Survey of India between 15.05.1986 to 31.05.1989; as “Chemist (Groups A Gazetted)” in the Indian Bureau of Mines between 05.06.1989 up to 12.04.1994; and as “Deputy Director (Ind. Hygiene)” in the Directorate General Factory Advice Services and Labour Institutes from 13.04.1994 to 10.11.1995. The appellant was declared confirmed in the grade of “Assistant Chemist” w.e.f. 15.05.1988 vide notification dated 05.05.1995. All these appointments were made against the Scheduled Tribe reserved category. However, lastly, the appellant joined the Customs and Central Excise Department as “Chemical Examiner Grade I”, from 21st November, 1995 pursuant to appointment order dated 16th June, 1995. He was working on that post till his services were terminated vide order dated 8th June, 2004, consequent to the decision of the Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee – that the appellant belonged to caste “Koshti”, which is not a Scheduled Tribe in the State of Maharashtra.

14. Accordingly, we find no merit in this appeal; the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.

August 12, 2016.

Date : 12/08/2016 This appeal was called on for pronouncement of Judgment today.

For Appellant(s) Mr. Rajesh Prasad Singh, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Hon'ble Mr.Justice A.M. Khanwilkar pronounced the judgment of the Bench comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel and His Lordship.

The civil appeal is dismissed in terms of the signed reportable judgment.
Virender Khullar vs American Consolidation Services Ld.& ...

Brief facts of the case are that the appellants-complainants entrusted consignments containing men’s wearing apparels in December 1994 to Respondent No. 1 American Consolidation Services Ltd., Akruti Trade Centre, 402, 4th Floor, Andheri (East), Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as “ACS”), and cargo receipts were issued to them by Respondent No. 1. As per the cargo receipts so issued, the consignments were to the order of Respondent No. 2 Central Fidelity Bank, Richmond VA, USA. Respondent No. 1 on its part handed over the consignments to respondent No. 4 M/s. Hoeg Lines, Lief Hoegh & Co., A/S Oslo, Norway/M/s. American President Lines Limited, Tarde Plaza 2nd Floor, 414 Veer Savarkar Marg, Prabhadevi, Mumbai, for delivery of the consignments at the port of destination. It is alleged that in the Bill of Lading issued by the shipping carriers, name of consignee was changed from Central Fidelity Bank to Coronet Group Inc. besides there being several other changes in the name and description of the shipper as Cavalier Shipping Co. When payment was not received till March, 1995, the appellants/ complainants made enquiry about the consignments. After servicing legal notice, appellant Virender Khullar filed a complaint for an amount of Rs.35,31,601.15 in respect of 300 cartons containing men’s apparels through cargo receipt Nos. 34307, 34308 and 34309, and appellant Girish Chander filed the complaint for an amount of Rs.29,17,844.76 for 220 cartons containing men’s apparels sent through cargo receipt Nos. 34116, 34117 and 34118, before NCDRC, New Delhi. Initially complaints were filed only as against Respondent No. 1, i.e. American Consolidation Services Ltd. (ACS).

We have considered the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellants and that of Respondent No. 2 and perused the record. Copies of cargo slips, which are on record, disclose that notified party/intermediary consignee was Respondent No. 3 Zip Code, 2615 Elmhurst Lane, Portsmouth, VA 23701, USA. In the column of name of consignee “To order of Central Fidelity Bank Richmond VA” is mentioned. Cargo slips further disclose that (Vessel, Voyage) Hoegh Clipper/Eagle Prestige was export carrier.

For the reasons discussed above, we find no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the NCDRC and, as such, these appeals are liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, both the appeals are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

August 16, 2016.
M/S.I.P.& Investment Corpn.Of Orissa ... vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd.And Anr

The Appellant is a wholly owned Public Sector Undertaking of the Government of Orissa. The Appellant finances medium and large scale industries within the State of Orissa and is also involved in setting up joint sector industries with private entrepreneurs. The Appellant extended a term loan of Rs. 40,74,000/- to M/s. Josna Casting Centre Orissa Pvt. Ltd. As the loan amount was not repaid, the Appellant exercising its power under Section 29 of the State Finance Corporation Act, 1951, took over the assets of M/s. Josna Casting Centre Orissa Private Limited on 14-02-1992. On 23-01-1996, the Appellant insured the said assets with Respondent No. 1 for a sum of Rs. 46,00,000/- under the Miscellaneous Accident Policy, Rs. 60,40,000/- under the Fire Policy and Rs. 46,00,000/- under the Burglary and House Breaking Policy.

2. The seized assets were put to auction by the Appellant on 22-01-1997 at which point of time it was detected that some parts of the plant and machinery were missing from the factory premises. The Appellant registered an FIR on 25-01-1997 in the Remona Police Station, Balasore regarding the theft/burglary of the plant and machinery. On 07-02-1997, the Appellant informed Respondent No. 1 about the theft and requested for issuance of a claim form. A claim was lodged with Respondent No. 1 on 16-12-1997 for an amount of Rs. 34,40,650/- under the Burglary and House Breaking Policy. The valuation reports given by GEC, Calcutta, the machines supplier and Alpha Transformer Ltd., Bhubaneswar were relied upon by the Appellant/Claimant. The claim of the Appellant was repudiated by Respondent No. 1 on 31-03-1998 on the ground that the alleged loss did not come within the purview of the insurance policy.

13. For the aforementioned reasons, we uphold the order of the MRTP Commission and dismiss the Appeal with no order as to costs.

[1] MacGillivray on Insurance Law (9th ed., 1997) (Nicholas Legh-Jones et al, eds.) at p. 280.

[2] Colinvaux’s Law of Insurance (6th ed., 1990) (Robert and Merkin, eds.) at p.42.
Vivek Singh vs State Of U.P & Anr

On 29.01.2001, the U.P. Public Service Commission invited applications for filling up 800 posts through the Combined State/Upper Subordinate Service Examination 2001. Amongst others the posts to be filled up were Deputy Collector – 9 posts, Deputy S.P. – 67 posts and Trade Tax Officer – 12 posts.

3. The appellant filed a writ petition before the Allahabad High Court praying for appointment on the post of Deputy Collector. However, pending the writ petition, he joined as a Trade Tax Officer in November, 2004.

4. On 26.11.2010, in National Federation of the Blind, U.P. Branch and others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & others[1], the Allahabad High Court passed an interim order directing the State Government to henceforth not fill up any vacancy unless a reservation of 3% was provided to physically handicapped candidates from the initial stage, i.e., from the stage of advertisement itself. The relevant portion of the order reads as follows:-

13. Lastly, we see no merit in the appeal and it is hereby dismissed.

[S.A. BOBDE] ..............................………J. [ASHOK BHUSHAN] NEW DELHI, AUGUST 26, 2016
Kadmanian @ Manikandan vs State Tr.Insp.Of Police

The prosecution in the instant case was lodged against the appellant herein - Kadamanian @ Manikandan, as well as, against co-accused

As per the prosecution version, M.Jayalakshmi went missing at 7 a.m. on 6.9.2007, having left her residence to answer the call of nature. Since she did not return, a missing person's report was lodged on 7.9.2007 by her father P.Matheswaran at Namakkam Kumarapalayam Police Station. It is also relevant to mention, that in the first information report registered on 7.9.2007, the complainant had attached the photograph of M. Jayalakshmi, and had also indicated for her identification, that she was wearing a green colour jacket and saree. It was also expressly mentioned, that she was wearing a nose-stud.

On 9.9.2007, a dead body of a female, was found by a sweeper, Natarajan – PW4. Based on the recovery of the dead body, another first information report came to be lodged. On 18.9.2007, the parents of the deceased – Jayalakshmi, identified the clothing and other artifacts, recovered with the dead body, as belonging to their daughter. It is also relevant to indiacate, that the aforesaid identification was affirmed by none other than the mother of the deceased, Vedammal – PW2. The mother identified her daughter from the photograph of the dead body.

The first needle of suspicion with reference to the appellant herein - Kadamanian @ Manikandan emerged from the statement of the investigating officer, Arumugam – PW20 dated 21.01.2008, affirming with Shanmugam – PW6, that the appellant had been seen close to the place of occurrence. Consequent upon the needle of suspicion having been pointed at the appellant, the appellant allegedly made an extra-judicial confession to R.V.Alagurajan – PW12. The aforesaid extra-judicial confession can be extracted from his statement made by R.V. Alagurajan – PW12, to the police. A relevant portion thereof is being reproduced hereunder:

Although, the sentences awarded by the trial Court, under various provisions of the IPC, were by and large maintained, the sentence awarded to the appellant (by the trial Court) under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code was reduced from 10 years to 7 years. Insofar as the other sentences are concerned, the appellant was ordered to suffer imprisonment for three years for the offence under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, he was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code to suffer life imprisonment, and for the offence under Section 404 of the Indian Penal Code, he was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for three years.

For the reasons recorded hereinabove, we find no justification whatsoever to interfere with the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant, by the High Court.

The instant appeal is accordingly dismissed.

(with appln. (s) for permission to file additional documents and exemption from filing O.T. and office report) Date : 31/08/2016 This appeal was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :
State Of Kerala & Ors vs P.Raghavan Nair

The prosecution in the instant case was lodged against the appellant herein - Kadamanian @ Manikandan, as well as, against co-accused

As per the prosecution version, M.Jayalakshmi went missing at 7 a.m. on 6.9.2007, having left her residence to answer the call of nature. Since she did not return, a missing person's report was lodged on 7.9.2007 by her father P.Matheswaran at Namakkam Kumarapalayam Police Station. It is also relevant to mention, that in the first information report registered on 7.9.2007, the complainant had attached the photograph of M. Jayalakshmi, and had also indicated for her identification, that she was wearing a green colour jacket and saree. It was also expressly mentioned, that she was wearing a nose-stud.

On 9.9.2007, a dead body of a female, was found by a sweeper, Natarajan – PW4. Based on the recovery of the dead body, another first information report came to be lodged. On 18.9.2007, the parents of the deceased – Jayalakshmi, identified the clothing and other artifacts, recovered with the dead body, as belonging to their daughter. It is also relevant to indiacate, that the aforesaid identification was affirmed by none other than the mother of the deceased, Vedammal – PW2. The mother identified her daughter from the photograph of the dead body.

The first needle of suspicion with reference to the appellant herein - Kadamanian @ Manikandan emerged from the statement of the investigating officer, Arumugam – PW20 dated 21.01.2008, affirming with Shanmugam – PW6, that the appellant had been seen close to the place of occurrence. Consequent upon the needle of suspicion having been pointed at the appellant, the appellant allegedly made an extra-judicial confession to R.V.Alagurajan – PW12. The aforesaid extra-judicial confession can be extracted from his statement made by R.V. Alagurajan – PW12, to the police. A relevant portion thereof is being reproduced hereunder:

Although, the sentences awarded by the trial Court, under various provisions of the IPC, were by and large maintained, the sentence awarded to the appellant (by the trial Court) under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code was reduced from 10 years to 7 years. Insofar as the other sentences are concerned, the appellant was ordered to suffer imprisonment for three years for the offence under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, he was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code to suffer life imprisonment, and for the offence under Section 404 of the Indian Penal Code, he was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for three years.

For the reasons recorded hereinabove, we find no justification whatsoever to interfere with the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant, by the High Court.

The instant appeal is accordingly dismissed.

(with appln. (s) for permission to file additional documents and exemption from filing O.T. and office report) Date : 31/08/2016 This appeal was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :
Hindustan Lever Ltd vs State Of Karnataka

1. The appellant is a public limited company having a tea manufacturing unit at Dharwad and various other units which also manufacture tea. The tea manufactured by the appellant is of three types, namely, packet tea, tea in tea bags, and quick brewing black tea. It is claimed that the Dharwad Unit, as opposed to the other units manufacturing tea, is a new unit and is, therefore, exempt altogether from payment of entry tax on packing material of tea under a notification dated 31.3.1993 issued under Section 11A of the Karnataka Tax on Entry of Goods Act, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as the “Karnataka Entry Tax Act”). Insofar as the other units are concerned, it is the case of the appellant they are covered by Explanation II to a Notification dated 23.9.1998 issued under Section 3 of the said Act, and “packing material” being covered by the said Explanation would entitle them to pay entry tax at the rate of 1% and not 2%. In these appeals, we are concerned with three assessment years 1994-1995, 1995- 1996 and 1996-1997.

21. It only remains to deal with the argument made on behalf of the appellant based on the Tea Marketing Control Order. Needless to add, a manufacturer for the purpose of the said Order is specifically a person who produces value added products commercially known as tea. The context of the said definition is for the purpose of registering manufacturers or producers and buyers of tea, having relevance therefore to the sale aspect of tea. As has already been held by us, the context of entry tax being different, we are afraid this argument also does not avail the appellant.

22. We are, therefore, of the view that the High Court was correct in following its own earlier Division Bench judgment in the Nestle case. This appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.

..............................J .

(A.K. SIKRI) ..............................J .

(R.F. NARIMAN) New Delhi;

September 2, 2016