L-NLProc/TathyaNyaya-and-FactLegalLlama-NyayaScrape-Datasets huggingface dataset:
M/S. Adhunik Food Products (P) Ltd., U.P vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, Meerut

The assessee manufactures 'puffs' from cereals namely wheat and soya nuts. The said product is packed in unit containers and supplied to Integrated Child Development Scheme (for short 'ICDS') in Haryana.

On 21.3.1997 a show-cause notice was issued by the Department raising a demand on the assessee for mis-declaration of the said products as 'chabena/prasad'. In the said show cause notice it was further alleged that the products were sold under the brand name 'bonton'. Under the said show cause notice it was also alleged that the said 'puffs' were sold in the market as breakfast cereals, high in protein and low in cholesterol. It was further alleged that the said products were sold to five star hospitals and public schools. In the circumstances the assessee was called upon to pay to the Department Rs.2.31 crores as duty for the aforesaid period. This demand has been confirmed by the authorities below as well as by the Tribunal. Hence this civil appeal.

For the sake of clarity we also quote hereinbelow the remoulded Chapter Heading 21.08.

(d) powders for table creams, jellies, ice- creams and similar preparations, whether or not sweetened;

(e) flavouring powders for making beverages, whether or not sweetened;

(f) peanut butter;

(g) preparations consisting of tea or coffee and milk powder, sugar and any other added ingredients;

(i) pre-cooked rise cooked either fully or partially and their dehydrates; and

(j) preparations for lemonades or other beverages, consisting, for example, of flavoured or coloured syrups, syrup flavoured with an added concentrated extract, syrup flavoured with fruit juices and concentrated fruit juice with added ingredients.

Heading No. Sub-
L.I.C. Of India vs Anwar Khan (Since Deceased) Through Lrs

Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

In this case, undisputedly there is dispute about the entitlement of the claimant. The matter is pending before the High Court. Therefore, the High Court's view holding the claimant to be entitled to compensation is clearly untenable. Accordingly, the amount awarded as compensation is set aside. However, we find that pursuant to the directions given a sum of Rs.1,28,000/- has been deposited and a sum of Rs.60,000/- has been withdrawn by the legal heirs of the claimant.

Though we have hold that proviso to Section 15(3) has application, considering the fact that the amount has been withdrawn, we direct that there shall not be any recovery. It is made clear that these directions shall not in any way affect the decision in the second appeal.

The appeal is allowed.
P.T. Munichikkanna Reddy & Ors vs Revamma And Ors

Defendants Respondents in their written statement denied and disputed the aforementioned assertion of the plaintiffs and pleaded their own right, title and interest as also possession in or over the said 1 acre 21 guntas of land. The learned Trial Judge decreed the suit inter alia holding that the plaintiffs appellants have acquired title by adverse possession as they have been in possession of the lands in question for a period of more than 50 years. On an appeal having been preferred there against by the respondents before the High Court, the said judgment of the Trial Court was reversed holding:

2. Specific Positive intention to dispossess on the part of the adverse possessor effectively shifts the title already distanced from the paper owner, to the adverse possessor. Right thereby accrues in favour of adverse possessor as intent to dispossess is an express statement of urgency and intention in the upkeep of the property.

What is really meant, in my judgment, is that the animus possidendi involves the intention, in one's own name and on one's own behalf, to exclude the world at large, including the owner with the paper title if he be not himself the possessor, so far as is reasonably practicable and so far as the processes of the law will allow."

The question of the application of Article 41 was referred for the Grand Chamber Hearing of the ECHR. This case sets the field of Adverse Possession and its interface with the right to peaceful enjoyment in all its complexity.

Therefore it will have to be kept in mind the Courts around the world are taking an unkind view toward statutes of limitation overriding property rights.
Babulal Jain vs State Of M.P. & Ors

Questioning the said order, he filed an original application before the Madhya Pradesh Administrative Tribunal.

(ii) In any event no recovery could have been directed to be made from the salary of the appellant.

For the reasons aforementioned, this appeal is allowed in part and to the extent mentioned hereinbefore.

We, therefore, while directing the respondents to refund the said sum of Rs. 22,000/- to the appellant herein, also direct that his retirement benefit shall be calculated as if he had reached the age of superannuation only as an Accountant on the re-fixed pay and not on the scale of pay of the Election Supervisor. We issue this direction in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. No costs.
M/S Co-Operative Company Ltd vs Commissioner Of Trade Tax, U.P

Differing with the findings of fact arrived at by the Appellate Authority as also the Tribunal, the High Court, in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, however, in its judgment which is being impugned before us proceeded on the basis that in view of the definition of 'turnover' as contained in Section 2(i) of the Act, and also the fact that the liquor could not be sold without packing, a contract of sale of bottles would be presumed, holding :

Thus, without adverting to the question as to whether there had been an implied sale, Entry 20 will have no role to play.

For the reasons aforementioned, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained, which is set aside accordingly. The appeal is allowed. The matter is remitted to the High Court for its consideration afresh. No costs.
Union Of India (Uoi) vs S.P.S. Rajkumar And Ors.

2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

10. It is to be noted that there was no challenge to the finding that there was no senior army officer available. Rule 46 which relates to the eligibility of the member does not speak of seniority. It speaks of the same rank or superior rank. There was no objection at any point of time about the lack of seniority. In fact the High Court has fallen into error in holding that the relevant date is the date of filing of the writ petition. There is also no plea raised in these appeals as regards the finding that nobody who was senior was available. Therefore, the High Court was not justified in interfering with the conclusions of the GCM holding the same to be not validly constituted. The order is set aside. The appeals of the Union of India stand allowed to that extent. Raj Kumar's appeal is sans merit.

The appeals are accordingly disposed of. There will be no order as to costs.
Commissioner Of Income Tax, Coimbatore vs M/S. Lakshmi Machine Works

For the assessment year 1993-94 M/s. Lakshmi Machine Works (assessee) filed its return of income declaring its taxable income of Rs.50.80 lakhs. On 10.6.94 intimation under Section 143(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act') was sent by the Department accepting the returned income. Later on the Department issued notice under Section 143(2) of the Act. One of the items for issuing the said notice was the quantum of deduction under Section 80HHC of the Act. The assessee had computed the allowable deduction under Section 80HHC without taking into account in the total turnover the sales tax and excise duty. The assessee was asked to explain why the total turnover should not be recomputed by including sales tax and excise duty. In this connection, the Department placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of M/s. Chowringhee Sales Bureau (P) Ltd. v. C.I.T. West Bengal [1973] 83 ITR 542(SC). The assessee objected to the above inclusion. However, that objection was dismissed by the A.O. on the ground that under Section 80HHC(ba) deduction from "total turnover" was restricted only to three items, namely, profit on sale of import licence, duty drawback and CCS. The A.O. further held that from the profits of business, the assessee was entitled to deduct the above three items and also brokerage, commission, interest, rent, charges or any other receipt of similar nature. Before the A.O., the assessee contended that items which cannot be regarded as profits, the question of treating those items as part of "total turnover" did not arise. The A.O. treated certain miscellaneous receipts and interest receipts as part of business profits to which the assessee objected. The assessee pointed out that under Section 80HHC as it stood in the assessment year 1993-94, a deduction of 10% was allowed whereas the balance 90% stood excluded from the business profits. However, the assessee's argument for non-inclusion of sales tax and excise duty was not accepted by the A.O. Aggrieved by the above decision, the matter was carried in appeal to the C.I.T. (Appeals). The appellate authority agreed with the submissions made on behalf of the assessee. It was held that sales tax and excise duty were liabilities of the assessee to the Government. They were shown separately from the value of the goods, therefore, they were not included in the "total turnover"

7. Remarks, if any SECTION B Details of sale of Export House/Trading House SL No. Name and address of the Export House/Trading House to whom goods or merchandise were sold Sale Invoice No. and date Sale price Invoice No. and date by which Export House/Trading House has exported Date of certificate issued by the Export house/ Trading House under clause (b) of sub-

5. Export incentives Export incentives are:

For the above reasons, we see no merit in these appeals filed by the Department and, accordingly, they are dismissed with no order as to costs.
Asharam & Anr vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

As per the case of the prosecution, on 31.10.1988 Nandan (PW-1), Tikaram (PW-2), and Koshabai (PW-3) had gone to sow the seeds in their field. After sowing the seeds, when they were returning to their village, they saw the appellants along with three others hiding in the field of Chunni come out of the hiding and assaulted Nandan (PW-1). When Tikaram (PW-2) and Koshabai (PW-3) came to the rescue of Nandan, they were also beaten up. All the three were taken to the village Bijadehi and the FIR was lodged by PW-1 at Police Station, Bijadehi at 4:00 p.m. where the offence was registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 324 and 307 IPC. The injured were sent to the Bijadehi hospital and from there they were referred to the District Hospital, Betul where they were x-rayed. In the x-ray, grievous injuries including fractures were found on the body of Koshabai and Tikaram. They remained in the hospital for 10/15 days.

According to the trial court, Koshabai in her evidence stated that all the 5 accused were hiding behind the tuar tree and they came out together but in her cross-examination she stated that Dayaram came out first followed by others. According to Nandan, all the accused came together. On account of these contradictions, the trial court held that all the accused did not come together as alleged by the prosecution. This, according to the trial court, was one more contradiction between the evidence of PW-1 and the evidence of PW-3.

According to the trial court, even PW-10 (doctor) has not stated that the injuries caused to PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 were dangerous to the lives of the injured, that the injuries like fracture could have been caused by fall and that the fracture on the hand was not serious as hands were not vital organs. According to the trial court, in view of the above evidence no case under Section 307 was made out and at the most the case stood covered under Section 324 IPC.

For the aforesaid reasons, the conviction rendered by the High Court is upheld and the appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Punjab Water Supply Sewerage Board & Anr vs Ram Sajivan & Anr

These two appeals by special leave involving common question of law and fact were taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by a common judgment. Respondents herein were employed on work charge basis. One of the workman was transferred. Respondents were opposing the said order of transfer. They allegedly assaulted one of their senior officers as the said order of transfer despite protests was not cancelled. A First Information Report was lodged. Their services were terminated on 8.8.1994. They were found guilty in the criminal case and were convicted by the learned Trial Judge by an order dated 29.4.2000. They preferred an appeal thereagainst. However, an industrial dispute was raised questioning the said order of termination. The said dispute was referred to the Labour Court for adjudication by the State Government. By an Award, re-instatement of the respondents was directed by the said Court with continuity of service but without back wages. A Writ Petition preferred thereagainst by the appellant was dismissed by the High Court by an Order dated 22.11.2000, whereupon the respondent joined his services. In the meanwhile, an appeal preferred by the respondent was also dismissed by an Order dated 17.4.2001 by the appellate court. A show cause notice was issued as to why their services should not be terminated in view of the judgment of conviction having been upheld by the learned Additional District Judge. Respondents filed their show cause whereafter an order terminating their services on the charges of misconduct was passed on 6.8.2001. On a revisional application filed by the respondents, the High Court by a Judgment dated 24.8.2001 directed them to be released on probation.

Submission of Mr. Gupta, that owing to passage of time, this Court would refrain itself from permitting the appellant to initiate a full fledged departmental proceeding at this stage, does not appeal to us. There are cases and cases. Factors taking into consideration for issuing such a direction would be different depending upon the factual matrix involved in each case. Indiscipline at the work place has been considered by this Court seriously particularly when the misconduct alleged is physical assault of a higher authority. The nature of assault, the role played by the concerned workman and the question as to whether with the passage of time any proceeding should be initiated or not, in our opinion plays an important role and as such does not merit laying down a general law in this behalf.

We, therefore are of the opinion that the interest of justice would be met if liberty is granted to the appellant herein to initiate a disciplinary proceedings against the respondent whereafter the appellants may pass appropriate order in accordance with law. The impugned judgment is set aside.

These appeals are allowed to the aforementioned extent. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
Shakti Dan vs State Of Rajasthan

3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

5. A regular FIR was chalked on the basis of above report (Ex.P/21). Thereafter, the investigation was conducted by Ishwar Singh (PW-13). He recorded statements of the witness of the case. The accused was arrested through Arrest Memo Ex.P/4 in presence of the witnesses. After investigation, a charge sheet was presented in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Nawa under Sections 302 and 323 IPC on 19.7.1999. Thereafter, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Parbatsar, after hearing both the sides on charge, framed charges under Section 302 and 323 of IPC on 16.12.1999. Accused denied the charges framed against him and claimed trial.

6. In support of the case, prosecution examined Hamir Singh (PW-1), Kishorilal (PW-2), Pushpa Kanwar (PW-3) (the wife of the accused), Shambhoo Singh (PW-4), Saroj Kanwar (PW-5)(wife of PW6 Idan), Idan (PW-6), Kishore Singh (PW-7), Madho Ram (PW-

First, it must establish, quite objectively, that a bodily injury is present.

Once these three elements are proved to be present, the enquiry proceeds further and, Fourthly, it must be proved that the injury of the type just described made up of the three elements set out above is sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. This part of the enquiry is purely objective and inferential and has nothing to do with the intention of the offender."

24. The above are only broad guidelines and not cast iron imperatives. In most cases, their observance will facilitate the task of the Court. But sometimes the facts are so intertwined and the second and the third stages so telescoped into each other that it may not be convenient to give a separate treatment to the matters involved in the second and third stages.

26. Considering the backgrounds facts and applying the principles set out above we are of the view that this is case where the conviction would be appropriate in terms of Section 304 Part I, IPC and custodial sentence of 10 years would meet the ends of justice. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. We appreciate the able assistance which learned Amicus Curiae rendered to the Court.
I.G. (Karmik) & Ors vs Prahalad Mani Tripathi

Respondent's father Shri Narmadeshwar Mani Tripathi was a constable. He was in Uttar Pradesh Police Service. He died in harness on 2.1.1986. Grant of appointment to a dependant of an employee who died in harness is governed by statutory rules, in terms whereof the appellant filed an application for his appointment. He disclosed his academic qualification therein. He was considered for appointment as a Constable. He was not found eligible therefor having not satisfied the physical standard stipulated under the rules. He was appointed as a Peon. He accepted the said appointment without any demur whatsoever. He, however filed an application before the Uttar Pradesh Services Tribunal, Lucknow praying for his absorption in the post of Constable (M) with consequential benefits from the date of his initial appointment. By reason of a Judgment and Order dated 24.7.2000, the Tribunal arrived at a finding that although, ordinarily, rule of estoppel apply in a case of this nature, having regard to the representations made by him before the authorities in the instant case, the same should not be applied. It directed the appellant to appoint him in Class III posts with a further direction that the services rendered by him in the post of ordinary Peon be counted towards his pensionary benefits in the class III posts.

Respondent, thus, could be offered an appointment only to the post for which he was suitable.

For the reasons aforementioned, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained. It is set aside accordingly. The Appeal is allowed. In the facts and circumstances of this case, however, there shall be no order as to costs.
Union Of India & Ors vs Sangram Keshari Nayak

On or about 27.08.1999, one Shri G.P. Srivastava who was immediate junior to the respondent was promoted to the post of Senior Administrative Grade but only on 24.09.1999, a departmental proceeding was initiated against the respondent by issuance of a chargesheet.

An original application filed by the respondent before the Calcutta Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal, which was eventually transferred to the Cuttack Bench, praying for a direction to the appellants to promote him to the said post from the date when his junior was appointed, was allowed by a judgment and order dated 19.08.2003. A writ petition filed by the appellants thereagainst has been dismissed by the High Court, by reason of the impugned judgment.

We, therefore, are of the opinion that there is no infirmity in the impugned judgments. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with costs. Counsel's fee assessed at Rs. 25,,000/-.
M/S. Hamdard (Wakf) Laboratories vs Deputy Labour Commr. & Ors

The said award ultimately attained finality as the writ petition preferred thereagainst by the appellant was dismissed by an order dated 3.11.1995. A Special Leave Petition filed thereagainst has also been dismissed.

The Additional Labour Commissioner, however, on an objection raised by the appellant to the effect that the amount of bonus could not be included in the claim application issued a recovery certificate for a sum of Rs. 17,61,755.18. A review application, however, was filed inter alia on the premise that the workmen were not entitled to claim any bonus. By an order dated 9.11.1994, the said plea on the part of the appellant was accepted as a result whereof the claim was reduced to Rs. 5,31,030.90. The said direction admittedly has been complied with.

In view of the fact that diverse authorities exercise jurisdiction which may be overlapping to some extent, the courts while interpreting the provisions of the statutes must interpret them in such a manner so as to give effect thereto.

It, therefore, must have in mind the provisions of the Act alone. The aforementioned decisions, therefore, have no application to the facts and circumstances of the present case.

We, therefore, are of the opinion that the impugned judgment cannot be sustained which is set aside accordingly. The appeal is allowed. No costs.
State Of Orissa And Anr vs M/S K.B. Saha And Sons Industries Pvt. ...

Writ petitions were filed by the respondents on the plea that the transactions between them and the Corporation were in course of inter-State trade and, therefore, only sales tax under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (in short the 'Central Act') and not the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 (in short the 'State Act') was leviable. Accordingly, prayer was made for a declaration that levy and collection of tax under the State Act was unauthorized, without jurisdiction and the excess amount collected from them under the guise of State sales tax should be refunded.

Background facts as presented by the appellants are as follows:

xx xx xx xx

As noted above, specific averments have been made in the writ petitions about the certificate issued by the Income tax authorities and there is no denial to this position.

Above being the position, the inevitable conclusion is that the High Court was justified in its view. On the fact situation established no interference is, therefore, called for. The appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs.

In view of dismissal of the present appeals, no order is required to be passed in I.A.No.3 in SLP (C) No.15308/2002.
Ramkrushna vs State Of Maharashtra

Prosecution case is that there had been a dispute by and between the deceased and the said Baliram with regard to the partition of the joint family properties. Deceased Baliram also had asked for the motor cycle belonging to the deceased which was denied. In the midnight at about 2 a.m. on 21.9.1986 both the accused came to the house of the deceased. Accused No. 1 was armed with a large stick known as "Ubhari". Appellant was armed with a knife. They had shut the door of the room where Dnyaneshwar was sleeping. The door between the room of the deceased and his wife Shobha was, however, open. On hearing a cry of her husband, Shobha came out. Appellant threatened her at the point of a knife asking her not to shout. Both the accused then assaulted deceased Kannu Shende with Ubhari (stick) and knife.

Before the learned trial judge, inter alia the wife of the deceased was examined. She turned hostile. Two other witnesses P.W. 5, Nilesh and P.W. 7 Uttam who had made statements before the Police that they alongwith Baliram and Ramkrushna came to the village on cycle were also declared hostile. The learned trial judge, however, relied upon the statements of Dnyaneshwar (P.W. 8) and to some extent the deposition of P.W. 3, Shobha. The appellant was found to be guilty of commission of the said offence. Appeal preferred by the appellant thereagainst as noticed hereinbefore has been dismissed.

[See also Gurpreet Singh v. State of Haryana, (2002) 8 SCC 18 and Gagan Kanojia & Anr. v. State of Punjab, 2006 (12) SCALE 479] For the reasons aforementioned, there is no merit in this appeal, which is dismissed accordingly.