L-NLProc/TathyaNyaya-and-FactLegalLlama-NyayaScrape-Datasets huggingface dataset:
Tanuku Taluk Village Officers ... vs Tanuku Municipality

3. A few facts need mention in brief infra for the disposal of these appeals.

21. Learned counsel for the respondents made sincere attempt in her submission that the findings recorded by the High Court on its merit is just and proper and hence should not be disturbed. We cannot accept her submission in the light of what is held above. The respondents, therefore, will be at liberty to raise such pleas before the High Court in accordance with law consequent upon the matter now being remanded to the High Court.

22. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeals succeed and are accordingly allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The appeals are remanded to the High Court for their hearing afresh on the merits and in accordance with law. Needless to say, the High Court will dispose of the appeals as well as the revision petitions because all the four matters were heard together and disposed of by a common order keeping in view the requirements of 9 9 Section 100 of the Code, as mentioned above, insofar as they relate to second appeals.

23. We have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case having formed an opinion to remand the case to the High Court for their fresh disposal on the merits as indicated above. The High Court will accordingly decide the second appeals as well as revision petitions uninfluenced by any observations made in the impugned order and this order.

March 12, 2019 10 10
Dilip Mani Dubey vs M/S Siel Ltd..

2. A few facts need mention hereinbelow for the disposal of these appeals.

6. Against the said order, the appellant filed a review petition which was dismissed by the High Court by order dated 05.02.2008.

16. We do not agree with this submission. In our opinion, the High Court, though took note of the 5 factual matrix and examined the issue in its proper perspective with reference to the case set up by both the parties, rightly came to a conclusion that the appellant (workman) did not work continuously for one year with respondentNo.1(employer).

23. The appellant should, therefore, feel satisfied with such order that though he lost the matter and indeed rightly yet he received substantial amount during pendency of this litigation, which is rightly not challenged by respondent No.1(Employer) in appeal. 8

24. In the light of the foregoing discussion, we find no merit in these appeals. The appeals fail and are accordingly dismissed.

March 12, 2019 9
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Deepak

4 On 9 August 2017, Jyoti Sharma committed suicide by consuming poison at her residence at Neemuch. Immediately after she consumed poison, she was moved to the District hospital for treatment. The dying declaration of the victim was recorded on 9 August 2017 in the presence of the Naib Tehsildar, Neemuch. The relevant part of the dying declaration is extracted below:

5 Jyoti Sharma died on 10 August 2017 at a hospital in Udaipur where she was admitted for treatment. The First Information Report 3 was registered on 16 August 2017. During the course of the investigation, the respondent was arrested on 6 September 2017. On the completion of the investigation, the investigating officer submitted a charge-sheet on 22 September 2017 under Section 306 of the Penal Code and Section 3(2)(v) and Section 3(2)(v)(a) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act before the Special Judge, Neemuch. Cognizance was taken on 13 October 2017. Charges were framed on 10 January 2018. Challenging the order framing charges, a Criminal Revision was filed before the High Court.

17 We, however, clarify that this judgment shall not affect the merits of the trial. 18 For the above reasons, we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment and order of the High Court dated 31 January 2018.
Uma Mahesh Bandekar And Anr. vs Vivek Sadanand Marathe And Ors.

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

3.1 That by order dated 02.06.2015, the learned Civil Judge at Margao (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Inventory Court’) dismissed the objections of the appellants for correcting the area of the said property and also denied enlisting of the said tenanted premises to the estate of the deceased.

3.4 This Court issued notice in the special leave petition vide order dated 08.07.2016. That during the pendency of the present appeal, the Inventory Court has pronounced the final order and has drawn the final chart of partition in Regular Inventory Proceeding No.11/2013/C vide final order dated 31.07.2017, excluding the "lease premises” which is the subject matter of present appeal.

5.6 Making the above submissions, it is prayed to dismiss the present appeal.

13. In view of the above and for the reasons stated, the present Appeal Succeeds. The impugned orders passed by the inventory court and the High Court are hereby quashed and set aside, and it is held that appellant no.1 being a married daughter shall have a right of succession in the “lease premises” and the same ought to have been included in the list of assets in the inventory proceedings. Consequently, the partition as per the final order passed by the inventory court and consequent drawing of the final chart of partition, pursuant to the final order dated 31.07.2017 in Regular Inventory Proceeding No. 22 11/2013/C be amended accordingly with the aid and/or considering Section 446 of the Inventory Proceeding Act, 2012.

14. The instant APPEAL is ALLOWED accordingly, in terms of the above. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
Pooran Singh vs Dhaniram (Since Dead) Thr. Legal Heirs

Divisional Officer shall make such enquiry as may be deemed necessary about all such transactions of transfer and if he finds that the member of aboriginal tribe has been defrauded of his legitimate right he shall declare the transaction null and void and pass an order revesting the agricultural land in the transferor and, if he is dead, in his legal heirs.” Proceedings were initiated before the Sub Divisional Officer, Balod 2 at the instance of Beniram under Section 170B. On 28 July 1984, the plea was initially rejected by the SDO, Balod. However, on 5 June 1985, the Collector, Durg, allowed the Revenue Appeal3 against the order of the SDO Balod. The Collector directed the reversion of the land in favour of Beniram. On 11 June 1986, the Additional Commissioner Raipur Division dismissed the Appeal 4 filed by Dhaniram. Dhaniram initiated writ proceedings 5, before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in order to challenge the order passed under Section 170B against him.

After the dismissal of the writ petition by the High Court, Dhaniram filed a suit6before the Civil Judge Class II, Balod against the appellant seeking a permanent injunction, possession and a declaration that the order dated 5 June 1985 of the Collector was null and void. The appellant contested the suit. The suit was rejected on 11 December 1995. However, in a first appeal 7, the District Judge, Durg set aside the order of the Trial Court and decreed the suit. The appellant unsuccessfully challenged the order of the first appellate court in a Second Appeal. The Second Appeal having been dismissed on 25 February 2015, these proceedings were instituted.

In the result, the petition is dismissed.” On 19 July 1986, possession was restored to Beniram, the predecessor-in-interest of the appellant.

For the above reasons, we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment and order of the High court dated 25 February 2015. In consequence, we restore the judgment of the Trial Court, dismissing Civil Suit No. 20A of 1992 instituted by the respondent. There shall be no orders as to costs.

March 14, 2019
Rameshwar Dass vs The State Of Punjab State Of Punjab

3. In order to appreciate the issues involved in this appeal, it is necessary to set out a few relevant facts hereinbelow.

6. The acquired land (14.49 acres) is situated in 9 villages, namely,(1) Jandpur, Tahsil Kharar, District Ropar; (2) Dharak Khurd, Tahsil Kharar, District Ropar; (3) Pamour, Tahsil Sirhind, District Patiala; (4) Majat, Tahsil Kharar, District Ropar; (5) Matran, Tahsil Kharar, District Ropar; (6) Bhago Majra, Tahsil Kharar, District Roopnagar; (7) Siampur, Tahsil Kharar, District Roopnagar; (8) Mataur, Tahsil Mohali, District Kharar; and (9) Manak Majra, Tahsil Kharar, District Ropar. So far as the 3 appellant’s land is concerned, it is located in the village Bhago Majra

23. We are, therefore, unable to find any good ground to further enhance the rate of compensation than what has been enhanced by the High Court in the impugned order.

24. As a consequence of the foregoing discussion, we find no merit in this appeal. This appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.

12 In C.A.@ S.L.P.(C) No.17144 of 2014, C.A.@ S.L.P. (C) No. 8073 of 2014, C.A.@ S.L.P.(C) No.29928 of 2014 and C.A.@ S.L.P.(C) No.8098 of 2014

1. Leave granted.

3. In view of the order passed above in C.A.@ S.L.P.(C) No.5513/2014, these appeals are also dismissed.

C.A.@ S.L.P.(C) No. 6261 of 2014

1. Leave granted.

2. So far this appeal is concerned, the appeal was filed and dismissed by the High Court by the order dated 13.01.2009 whereby the order passed by the 13 Civil Court came to be upheld. Thereafter, in the light of the decision rendered in Hari Singh & Ors. (supra), the appellant preferred an application for recall on 01.08.2013 with a prayer for enhancing the compensation. The said application was dismissed on 20.11.2013 on the ground that the appellant neither availed of further remedy against the order dated 13.01.2009 nor filed application for recall immediately thereafter.

3. In view of the order passed in Hari Singh & Ors.(supra), which is affirmed hereinabove and the compensation has been allowed to all the landowners of village Bhago Majra at more or less uniform rates, this appellant deserves the same relief. Hence, the order dated 20.11.2013 dismissing the application for recall as also the order dated 01.08.2013 in RFA are hereby set aside. This appellant is also held entitled to the same relief as allowed in the case of Hari Singh & Ors.(supra) 14 but he shall not be entitled to any interest for the period 13.01.2009 to 01.08.2013. The concerned authorities shall take necessary steps immediately for disbursing the amount of compensation in accordance with law.

The appeal thus succeeds and is allowed.

March 14, 2019.
Sr. Senior Superintendent Of Post ... vs Gursewak Singh

4. The factual matrix of the case, briefly stated, is as under:

The division bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh on 01.12.2017, dismissed the LPA 1 2014 (9) SCT 120 (DB) 2 2006 (3) SCT 577 4 filed by the Department on the ground that SLPs filed against the earlier judgments had been dismissed by this Court. As a consequence, the judgment of the learned Single Judge did not warrant interference. 4.8. The Department has filed the present Appeal to challenge the Judgment and Order dated 01.12.2017 passed by a division bench of the High Court.

(vii) Residence in post village/delivery jurisdiction of the Post Office within one month after selection but before engagement shall be mandatory for a Sevak:;

A Gramin Dak Sewak is not an “employee” under the 1972 Act. The first issue is answered accordingly.

10.1. The 2011 Rules provide that Gramin Dak Sewaks are Extra­Departmental Agents, who are outside the Civil Service of the Union, and shall not claim to be at par with 5 Superintendent of Post Officers v. PK Rajamma; (1997) 3 SCC 94 See also Union of India v. Kameshwar Prasad; (1997) 11 SCC 650 15 the Central Government Employees. The Extra­ Departmental Agents are engaged by the Department of Posts & Telegraphs to cater to the postal requirements in the rural and remote areas. The system avails the services of schoolmasters, shopkeepers, landlords, and such other persons in a village who have a reasonable standard of literacy, and adequate means of livelihood, and can therefore assist the Department on a part­time basis by way of gainful avocation, to provide service to the rural communities for their postal requirements.

11. The Impugned Orders passed by the High Court in both the Appeals are hereby set­aside.

We acknowledge the valuable assistance provided by the learned Amicus Curiae Mr. Bharat Sangal in representing the interest of the Respondents.

17 Pending applications in both the Appeals, if any, are dismissed.

The Appeals are allowed accordingly.
Dauwalal @ Ganesh Devangan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh(Now ...

2. First Information Report (Ext.P-60) was lodged with Police Station Bhatapara (Rural), District Raipur pursuant to information received at the Police Station around 12:05 a.m. on 24.02.1997 from Informant Netram (later examined as PW-2). According to the information, the cousin of the Informant named Parasram Yadav, Deputy Sarpanch, Village Jarod, Bhatapara was assaulted fatally on 23.02.1997 at about 9.00 p.m. The relevant information had named certain persons to be responsible for the crime from the assembly of 25-30 persons who had gathered outside the house of the deceased. The information was:-

3. During the course of investigation, names of 17 persons surfaced as suspects. Those 17 persons including the appellants were tried for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 323, 342 and 450 IPC as well as under Section 302 read with 149 IPC in Sessions Case No.359 of 1997.

7. Criminal Appeal Nos.410 and 698 of 2000 were preferred against the aforesaid conviction and sentence by 10 convicted accused and 7 convicted accused respectively in the High Court. Original Accused No.10, Birendra Kumar was found to be Juvenile on the date of occurrence and his case was accordingly separated. By its judgment and order which is presently under appeal, the High Court affirmed the view taken by the Trial Court and dismissed both the appeals. Thereafter, Special Leave Petition (Crl.) Nos.457-458 of 2016 was preferred by 9 convicted Accused in this Court. On 29.01.2016 this Court found no ground for interference with respect to 5 petitioners namely Kamta Prasad, Shankerlal Verma, Bharatlal Verma, Hariram Verma and Vinod Verma and dismissed their Special Leave Petition. However, as regards the present appellants, notice was issued whereafter both the sides were heard in the matter.

12. Considering all the factual aspects, in our considered view, it is not established beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants were guilty of the offences with which they were tried. We, therefore, grant benefit of doubt to CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 478-479 .OF 2019 (@ SLP (Crl) Nos.457-458 OF 2016) Dauwalal @ Ganesh Devangan & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh (Now State of Chhattisgarh) 9 the appellants. The appeals are, therefore, allowed and the appellants are acquitted of all the charges levelled against them. They be set at liberty unless their presence is required in connection with any other offence.
P Bandopadhya . vs Union Of India

2. The facts relevant for the present Civil Appeal, are briefly set out below:

The Appellants voluntarily exercised the option to be absorbed into the regular service of VSNL with effect from January 2, 1990.

2.4. Thereafter, a Staff Notice dated February 21, 1990 was issued by Respondent No. 4 – VSNL to its employees, who were earlier working in OCS. The employees were called upon to exercise their option in terms of Clause (a) of the Office Memorandum, i.e. either to retain the pensionary benefits available under the Government of India at the time of retirement as per the applicable Central Government rules in force, or opt to be governed by the rules of Respondent No. 4 – VSNL.

2.10. Accordingly, Respondent No. 2 – Department of Pension and Pension Welfare, Government of India informed the Appellants that their pension would be settled in terms of the Office Memorandum.

The case of the Appellants being Government servants prior to their absorption in VSNL, with less than 10 years of qualifying service, would be squarely covered by Clause (c) of the Office Memorandum. Under Clause (c), they would be entitled to receive an amount equal to the Provident Fund contribution for the period of their service under the Government, upto the date of their permanent absorption along with Simple Interest at 6% per annum as the opening balance in their CPF account with the Public Sector Undertaking/Autonomous Body.

9. In view of the aforesaid findings, the present Civil Appeal is dismissed. The impugned Judgment and Order dated January 13, 2016 passed by the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No. 2704 of 2005 is affirmed.

10. The Applications for Impleadment filed in the Appeal are disposed of in terms of the present judgment. Any other pending I.A.s are disposed of.

Ordered accordingly.
Union Of India vs All India Trade Union Congress

3. A few facts need mention hereinbelow for the disposal of this appeal, which involves a short point.

7. The appellant­Union of India opposed the claim of the respondents(writ petitioners). The Single Judge by order dated 11.03.2015 allowed the writ petition and directed the appellant­UOI to regularize the services of the workers. The appellants felt aggrieved and filed intra court appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court. By impugned order, the Division Bench dismissed the appeal with costs of Rs.50,000/­ and while 4 affirming the order of the Single Judge modified it and issued further a writ of mandamus by directing the appellant­Union of India to frame a scheme to provide specific facilities to the workers enumerated in the directions. The directions contained in para 24 of the impugned order reads as under:

E. The Union of India is directed to give temporary status to the workmen/casual labourers who have worked for more than 240 days continuously in the block of 12 calendar months.

F. The Union of India is directed to provide warm clothes to the casual labourers deployed in the border areas since they have to work in very low temperatures.

6 G. The Union of India is directed to provide the members of respondent Federation pre­fabricated houses with a separate bathroom. The rooms should be airy and well­lit. The houses should be provided with sufficient fuel to make them warm during severe winter conditions.

8. It is against this order, the appellant (Union of India) have felt aggrieved and filed the present appeal by way of special leave in this Court. 7

20. In the light of the foregoing discussion, we are unable to agree with the reasoning and the conclusion arrived at by the High Court in the impugned order.

21. As a consequence, the appeal succeeds and is accordingly allowed. The impugned order is set 13 aside and as a result thereof, the writ petition filed by the respondents is dismissed.

March 15, 2019 14
State Of Uttarakhand vs Prem Ram

In 1987, the respondent joined service as a Constable and was posted in the District of Pithoragarh, Uttarakhand. While he was posted at Berinag, Uttarakhand it was alleged that he was found in an inebriated state on 1 November 2006 and was misbehaving with the public. He was brought to the police station and was confined to the barracks. A medical examination was done, which showed that he was under the influence of alcohol. A charge sheet was issued to the respondent on 24 February 2007. After a disciplinary enquiry, the enquiry officer found that the charge of misconduct was substantiated. Following this, a notice to show cause was issued on 3 Digitally signed by May 2007. The respondent submitted his reply on 8 May 2017. On 16 May 2007, the NEELAM GULATI Date: 2019.03.27 10:27:07 IST Reason: Superintendent of Police, Pithoragarh passed an order of dismissal, holding that the charge of drunkenness and misbehavior had been proved. In the writ proceedings 2 instituted by the respondent, on 21 April 2010, the High court disposed of the matter by relegating him to the remedy of a statutory appeal. The appeal was dismissed by the Inspector General of Police, Kumaon Range on 28 August 2010 and a revision was dismissed by the Additional Director General of Police on 19 May 2011.

The writ petition instituted by the respondent against the order dated 19 May 2011 was dismissed by a single Judge of the High Court on 15 September 2014.

We hence allow the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment and order of the Division Bench of the High Court in Special Appeal No. 551 of 2014, maintaining the order passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition. There shall be no order as to costs.

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

(Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud) ...............................................J. (Hemant Gupta) New Delhi;

March 15, 2019
The Managing Director, Kerala Tourism ... vs Deepti Singh .

Date: 2019.03.27 10:27:06 IST Reason: 3 A consumer complaint in regard to an alleged deficiency of service of the Kerala 1 “National Commission” 2 Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. 2 was instituted by Ms Deepti Singh for and on behalf of herself and her two minor children. The complainants had booked accommodation at Hotel Samudra at Kovalam for a family holiday. On 21 March 2006 between 6.30 and 7 p.m., Satyendra Pratap Singh, the spouse of the first complainant and father of the two minor children entered the swimming pool of the hotel with his brother. Other guests of the hotel were present in the pool at that time. All of a sudden, Satyendra Pratap Singh became unconscious and sank into the pool. It was alleged by the complainants that on witnessing the incident, a foreigner who was in the vicinity in the pool lifted him out of the water. The incident is not in dispute. However, according to KTDC, the lifeguard on duty also jumped into the swimming pool. The victim was pulled out of the water and was taken to hospital. He died at 9.30 p.m. on the same day. 4 A First Information Report3 was lodged at about 2 p.m. on 22 March 2006 at the Medical College Police Station. Eventually, a complaint was filed before the NCDRC. The NCDRC has held that there was a deficiency of service on the part of the management of the hotel, primarily for the reason that the lifeguard on duty had also been assigned the task of being a Bartender. The NCDRC placed reliance on safety guidelines for water sports issued by the National Institute of Water Sports, Ministry of Tourism, Government of India. Insofar as they are material and as extracted in the impugned order of the NCDRC, the instructions read as follows:

Life guard on active duty should not be distracted while on duty. No other job shall be assigned to while they are on pool duty.

25 The NCDRC directed that the compensation should be paid within a period of six weeks from its decision, failing which it would carry interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum with effect from six weeks from the date of the judgment. We find no justification for the NCDRC to deprive the complainants of the benefit of interest from the date of filing of the complaint until the date of the decision. We, accordingly, modify the order of the NCDRC by directing that the amount which has been awarded by the NCDRC shall carry interest at the rate of 13 9% p.m. from the date of the institution of the consumer complaint till the date of payment. The amount which has been deposited in this Court in pursuance of the interim order passed in these proceedings is permitted to be withdrawn by the respondents. The balance, in terms of the present direction, shall be paid over by the KTDC to the complainants within a period of four months from the date of this order. 26 Civil appeal No. 6038 of 2015 shall stand dismissed and Civil Appeal No. 8000 of 2016 shall stand allowed to the extent indicated in the judgment. There shall be no order as to costs.

MARCH 15, 2019