L-NLProc/TathyaNyaya-and-FactLegalLlama-NyayaScrape-Datasets huggingface dataset:
N.A. Mayanna (D) By Lrs vs Sri M. Velu & Ors

Aggrieved against this order the plaintiff filed an appeal before the High Court and the appeal was decreed by the High Court setting aside the judgment of the Trial Court. Aggrieved against this order, the present appeal was filed by the legal representatives of the deceased of the defendant.

The brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of this appeal are that the plaintiff entered into an agreement of sale on 8.8.1979 with the defendant. In pursuance of the agreement, a plot measuring 40' x 180' was agreed to be sold from the larger extent of plot measuring 100' x 180' and further 20' x 180' road was also assured to be provided. The consideration was Rs. 22/- per sq. ft. and an advance of Rs. 10,000/- was paid and that within three months, the contract was to be completed.

The plot in question is admittedly an ancestral property of the vendor. It is alleged that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, however, the defendant vendor was not prepared to execute the sale deed and when he was making attempts to alienate the property, a suit was filed for injunction and subsequently, the present suit was filed for specific performance. The suit was contested by defendant by filing a statement and it was contended that defendant suffered a paralytic stroke, as such, he could not execute the agreement and besides, other members were not willing to sell the ancestral property. Therefore, he cancelled the agreement. It is alleged that under the agreement, the time was essence of the contract and as per the terms, the earnest money of Rs. 10,000/- was forfeited. The defendant died during the pendency of the proceedings. Therefore, the Trial Court framed six issues and dismissed the suit.

The appeal is accordingly, disposed of.

No order as to costs.
Chairman, Ad-Hoc Committee & Anr vs Lila Pal & Ors

Briefly stated, the facts are as follows.

Respondent No.1 was appointed on contingent basis. The case of the appellant is that the appointment by the Managing Committee of the Duff Primary School at Chinsurah was against non-existing post. Be that as it may be. We are not concerned with this. Suffice it to say, the respondent was stated to have been appointed on contingent paid basis of Rs.50/-. It appears that repeated request for creation of post has not produced any result and, therefore, the respondent No.1 filed a writ petition before the learned single Judge. The learned single Judge disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the school authority to pursue the matter for sanction of an additional post on the basis of increase roll strength.

Aggrieved thereby, the authority, the appellant herein, filed an appeal MAT No.3956/1999. The Division Bench disposed of the appeal by impugned order in terms of the following:-

Aggrieved thereby, the authority has preferred this appeal by special leave.

itself this purely executive or legislative function, and direct creation of posts in any organization.

In the facts and circumstances as stated above, both the learned single Judge and the Division Bench were not justified in directing for creation of a post. Both the orders of the learned single Judge and of the Division Bench are set aside. This appeal is allowed. No costs.
Reserve Bank Of India vs Prem Sukh

Suffice it to say, the respondent was entrusted with the higher duties in the Cash department as Assistant Treasurer on day to day basis by an order dated 1/6/1984. He continued in the same post upto 1988. It appears that by an interim order dated 6/9/1988 passed by the learned single Judge of the High Court in writ petition preferred by the respondent, he was allowed to continue till 4/9/1998. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant also filed an appeal before the Division Bench which was dismissed on 5/10/2001. The ....2.

Considering the entire facts and circumstances as enumerated above, we decline to exercise our powers under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. We clarify that we do not enter into the question of law and the same is left open to be considered in an appropriate case. We further clarify that this order is passed in the facts and circumstances of the present case and it shall not form a precedent in future.

The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
Karnataka State Financial Corporation vs N. Narasimahaiah & Ors

Respondents who were Directors of Company executed deeds of guarantee dated 15.05.1996 and 9.08.1996 agreeing to guarantee repayment/ redemption by the Company to the Corporation of the said non-convertible debenture subscription together with interest, etc. The said Company also executed a deed of hypothecation on or about 9.08.1996 whereby and whereunder its plants and machinery were hypothecated. A collateral security agreement was also executed by Shri S.K. Rajan wherefor a property bearing No. 49, House List Khata No. 100-A, Hennarayanapalya, Hemlet of Cholanayakamahalli, Kasba Hobli, Bangalore North Taluka was mortgaged as a security therefor.

Respondent No. 1 executed an agreement on 15.05.1996 in terms whereof his property bearing Site No. 55 (old), New No. 59, Annammadevi Temple Extension, Subedar Chatram Road, B.C. C. Division No. 22, Bangalore was given as a collateral security. The 'Industrial Concern' allegedly committed defaults.

SUBSEQUENT AMENDMENT EFFECT

THE EFFECT OF

CONCLUSION

35. For the views we have taken, it is not necessary for us to consider the question as to whether before a property is put to sale, possession is required to be taken.

36. For the reasons aforementioned, there is no merit in these appeals which are dismissed accordingly. Counsel's fee assessed at Rs. 50,000/- in each case.
P.K. Choudhury vs Commander, 48 Brtf (Gref)

3. The period during which the said offences are said to have been committed is 5.1.1989 to 11.2.1992. A complaint petition was filed in November, 2000 purported to be on the basis of a report dated 20.12.1996 of the then Commander, 48 BRTF at Tezu on 20.12.1996.

10. In view of the aforesaid decision, there cannot be any doubt whatsoever that appellant was entitled to get an opportunity of being heard before the delay could be condoned.

16. The High Court, therefore, in our opinion committed a manifest error in passing the impugned judgment.

17. The issues raised by the appellant were jurisdictional ones. The same should have been adverted to by the High Court.

For the reasons aforementioned, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained. It is set aside accordingly. Appeal is allowed. No costs.
Dinesh Borthakur vs State Of Assam

2. He is an Engineer by profession. At about 4.00/5.00 p.m. on 25.5.1999, when he returned from his place of work, he allegedly knocked the main door of the house. There was no response. He called his immediate neighbour Pranab Kumar Borah (PW1).

8. Apart from PW1, his wife Purnima Devi examined herself as PW-2. According to her, at about 10.10 A.M. when she had been going to her office, the daughter of the accused, Munni, had been crying. On being asked the reason therefor, Mala had replied that Munni had been crying because she had been giving her a bath.

15. According to PW6, sheets of the bed on which the dead bodies were found, had neatly been spread. He also noticed arrival of the police dog. According to him, after having smelt the dead bodies, the dog did not go out of the room but stayed inside it near and about the appellant.

20. PW12 is Smt.Manjuri Borthakur. According to her, she found the accused sobbing and moving hither and thither in the room in which his daughter had been lying dead.

21. PW13, Sri Anup Baruah was a resident of a place which was at a distance of four furlongs from the appellant's house. Somebody informed him about the said deaths whereupon he went there.

24. Only on the basis of the aforementioned materials brought on records by the prosecution, a judgment of conviction against the appellant was recorded by the learned Trial judge. The High Court dismissed the appeal preferred thereagainst.

44. Thus, merely because the appellant did not cry or weep on witnessing the dead bodies of his wife and daughter, cannot be made the basis for informing his guilt.

49. We have noticed heretobefore that the prosecution witnesses did not make any statement in regard to the purported reaction of the appellant before the Investigating Officer.

54. We, therefore, are of the firm view that circumstantial evidence leading to the guilt of the appellant have not been established by the prosecution, the judgment of the conviction and sentence, therefore, cannot be sustained. They are set aside accordingly. We can only record our distress that even in a case of this nature, appellant had to remain in custody for a period of four years.

54. The appeal is allowed. The appellant is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless wanted in connection with any other case.
Super Cassettes Industries Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs, New Delhi

The authority-in-original accepted the plea of the appellant that on re-import of repaired goods, the benefit of Notification No.94/96-Cus. dated 16.12.1996 for charging customs duty was available to it. He, however, charged CVD on repaired goods which was paid by the appellant under protest as the goods were urgently required in its factory. An appeal was filed against this part of the order of the Assistant commissioner on the Bills of Entry itself. The Commissioner(Appeals) allowed the appeal by way of remand with the directions "I remand the matter to the assessing authority and direct him to pass an appealable speaking order in the matter after extending proper opportunity to the appellants to defend themselves". Thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner passed an order saying that CVD is leviable on the imported goods without making any distinction between new and repaired magnetic heads. The appeal filed against the order passed after remand by the Deputy Commissioner was dismissed by the Commissioner of Customs(Appeals). Appellant, being further aggrieved, filed appeals before the Tribunal which have been dismissed by the order impugned before us. It has been held by the Tribunal that in view of Section 20 of the Act on the re-importation of goods, the duty leviable would be the same as would have been levied on the importation of goods for the first time. Counsel for the parties have been heard.

For the reasons state above, we do not find any merit in these appeals and dismiss the same with costs.
Vishwanath Dadoba Karale vs Prisa Shantappa Upadhye (D) Th. Lrs

5. At the end of the period mentioned hereinabove or also before the expiry of the said period at any time if we return the sale deed amount of Rs. 500/-, after accepting the said amount you have to return the possession in our favour and to execute sale deed in our favour. This is agreed between us."

Having regard to the terms of the transaction, we are of the opinion that the High Court was correct in its opinion that the transaction evidenced a mortgage and not a sale.

13. For the reasons aforementioned, there is no merit in this appeal which is dismissed with costs. Counsel's fee assessed at Rs. 10,000/-.
M/S. P.R. Catering Co. & Anr vs Oil And Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. & ...

2. The respondent, the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter called the "ONGC") invited tenders from qualified persons for providing catering services and house-keeping facilities in two drilling sites at Dimapur, in Nagaland. The appellants, M/s. P.R. Catering Company and several others submitted their quotations. As the rates submitted by the appellants were acceptable, its tender was accepted and an agreement entered between the parties on 21st September 1991 for the purpose of providing the necessary facilities for a period of two years starting 1st October 1991. One of the unsuccessful tenderers, Hotel Paradise however instituted a Civil Suit before the Additional District Judge at Jorhat on which the appellants were restrained ad-interim from acting in terms of the letter of intent issued by the ONGC and the ad-interim order granted was made absolute on 28th May 1992. The ONGC filed an appeal before the appellate court which vacated the injunction on 17th July 1992. The case of the ONGC is that vide letters dated 1st October 1992 and 28th May 1993 the ONGC had asked the appellants to provide the necessary services at two drilling sites whereas the case of the appellants is that they were in fact already providing necessary facilities as per terms and conditions of the contract and had accordingly submitted bills from time to time totaling Rs.56,42,940/- and through the ONGC had received the bills, it had refused to make any payment in response thereto. The appellant thereafter approached the High Court for a direction for the payment of its dues but the said writ application was dismissed on 18th May 1993. The appellant then filed an application in the Civil Court at Jorhat for appointment of an arbitrator as per terms of the contract and vide order dated 22nd May 1994 Justice S.P. Rajkhowa, a retired Judge of the High Court, was in fact appointed as the arbitrator. An appeal filed by the ONGC against the order dated 22nd May 1994 was dismissed by the High Court on 30th January 1996. The arbitrator thereafter made his award on 6th February 1996 granting the full amount claimed by the appellants along with the interest at 16% per annum. The ONGC thereupon filed an application for the setting aside of the award before the Civil Court at Jorhat which was dismissed and the award made a rule of the court and a decree passed accordingly. This order was challenged before the High Court on the following grounds:

5. We are of the opinion that it would not be proper to labour the matter any further in view of the fact that we intend to maintain the order of the High Court and to make any comment on the merits could prejudice the case of one of the parties. We accordingly dismiss the appeals but request the arbitrator to complete the arbitration proceedings within three months from the date of the supply of the copy of this order. There will be no order as to costs.
R.B. Giripunje & Ors vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors

3. The brief facts are that the appellants herein are Graduates in Agriculture and appellant No. 4 is a Post Graduate in Agriculture. All the appellants were registered with the Employment Exchange. The appellants challenged the action of respodnent No. 2 - Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Gondia, Maharashtra in not issuing letter to them for interview for the post of Gram Sevak, which was scheduled to be held on 17th August, 2001. It is alleged that the appellants were eligible for consideration to the post of Gram Sevak as they possessed requisite qualification as per the Government Resolution dated 6.6.2001. In these circumstances, the appellants herein filed a writ petition before the High Court of Bombay, Bench at Nagpur challenging the action of respondent No.2 herein in not calling them for interview to the post of Gram Sevak. As per Government Resolution dated 6.6.2001, under the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads (Recruitment) Rules the requirement for appointment to the post of Gram Sevak was Secondary School Certificate or any equivalent qualification and Diploma in Agriculture (two years' course) and preference needs to be given to the candidate, who possesses Degree in Agriculture or higher qualification or experience in social services and with rural base.

8. Be that as it may, so far as the case at hand is concerned, we are of the opinion that the interpretation given by the Division Bench of the High Court in the impugned judgment and order is not sustainable and accordingly we allow this appeal and set aside the impugned judgment and order. The respondents are left to make the appointments in accordance with law.

Appeal allowed. No order as to costs.
M.S.D.C. Radharamanan vs M.S.D. Chandrasekara Raja And Another

2. M/s. Shree Bhaarathi Cotton Mills Private Limited is a company registered and incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 (For short, 'the Act'). Out of the 2,84,000 equity shares in the company of Rs.10/- each, 2,83,999 shares are held by the first respondent and his son (appellant herein). The remaining one share is held by M/s. Visva Bharathi Textiles Private Limited, shares in which again is held equally by the first respondent and the appellant. Thus, for all intent and purport, all shares of the company are held by the appellant and the first respondent.

3. Whereas the first respondent is the Managing Director of the Company, the appellant is the Director thereof. Indisputably the parties are not on good terms.

4. Respondent No.1 filed an application purported to be under Sections 397 and 398 of the Act alleging several acts of oppression on the part of appellant herein before the Company Law Board, Additional Principal Bench, Chennai. The said application was registered as C.P. No. 2 of 2004. By reason of an order dated 16th August, 2004, the Company Law Board while opining holding there was no act of mala fide or oppression on the part of the appellant, opined that there exists a deadlock in the affairs of the company. It directed the appellant to purchase 2,84,000 shares held by the first respondent at a value to be determined by a chartered valuer.

5. An appeal was filed thereagainst by the appellant before the High Court of Judicature at Madras under of Section 10F of the Act which was registered as C.M.A. No. 174 of 2004.

15. When there are two Directors, non-cooperation by one of them would result in a stalemate and in that view of the mater the Company Law Board and the High Court have rightly exercised their jurisdiction.

38. Submission of Mr. Sundaram that the appointment of an additional Director could be a sufficient relief which the court may grant cannot be accepted. Appellant rejected such an offer. At this stage bitterness and acrimonious between the parties have ensued.

40. We, in the facts and circumstances of this case, are of the opinion that it is not a fit case where we should interfere with impugned judgment in exercise of our discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. The appeal fails and dismissed with costs. Counsel's fees assessed at Rs. 50,000/-.
Lic Of India vs R. Suresh

According to the Enquiry Officer, the respondent was negligent in the performance of his duties as he did not personally verify the details of the person concerned and relied wholly upon the representation of the agent. The Enquiry Officer found him guilty of the first four charges, but exonerated him on the fifth one. He was dismissed from service by the disciplinary authority by an order dated 19.4.1989.

Construing the text of G.P. Singh, Principles of Statutory Interpretation, 11th Ed., pg. 707;

19. Furthermore, however, the respondent is out of service since 1987. He has already suffered a lot being out of service for more than 20 years. All the courts have held in his favour. We, thus, do not think that it would be a fit case where we should exercise our discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. This appeal is dismissed. No costs.
Md. Kalam @ Abdul Kalam vs State Of Rajasthan

3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

Babul and maintained their conviction under Section 395 IPC and partly allowed the appeal of accused Ansari by altering his conviction from Section 395 IPC to Section 411 IPC. Investigation as against the appellant and co-accused Saidulla was kept pending under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the 'Code'). Appellant Mohd. Kalam was arrested on 27.3.1998. Co-accused Saidulla was also arrested but he absconded during trial and is still absconding.

6. The TI Parade was done on 3.4.1998, the accused was arrested on 27.3.1998 and on 28.3.1998 the accused was produced by the SHO at the residence of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.6 and prayer was made for police custody remand. On the application for remand, the Magistrate allowed the police custody till 31.3.1998. On 31.3.1998 the SHO again produced the appellant before the Magistrate and on both occasions the Magistrate recorded that the accused was produced 'Baparda'. The TI Parade was held on 3.4.1998 and the appellant and other accused were correctly identified by PW-3. The evidence of Shri Ratish Kumar Garg (PW-12) the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jaipur shows that on 3.4.1998 he was working as Judicial Magistrate and on the direction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur the accused-appellant alongwith others were brought for the TI Parade. Vishwas Jain (PW-3) correctly identified the appellant. It is also specifically stated in his evidence that it was not correct to say that the accused "might have told to him that accused was shown to the witness earlier."

18. In view of the evidence which the trial Court and the High Court have analysed and the identification by PW-3 in the TI Parade, there is no infirmity in the conclusions of guilt of the accused. The appellant's conviction is accordingly maintained. The sentence also does not warrant interference.

19. The appeal is without merit and is dismissed.
Gurdial Kaur (D) Through Lrs vs Piara Singh (D) Through Lrs

respondent A registered deed of sale was to be executed in terms thereof on or before 15.6.1965. Indisputably, the respondent paid a sum of Rs. 7,000/- out of a total consideration of Rs. 15,000/- to the said Gurcharan Singh on 5.10.1964. He died on 13.3.1965.

2. Allegedly, prior thereto, the said Gurcharan Singh despite having been called upon to execute and register the document did not come to the Registration Office. A suit for specific performance of the agreement was filed against the appellants on 25.3.1966. In the alternative, it was prayed that a sum of Rs. 7,000/- be paid to the respondent together with interest.

The said suit was decreed on 31.5.1966.

4. Appellants preferred an appeal thereagainst. By a judgment and order dated 20.10.1976, the said appeal was allowed and the suit was remanded to the Trial Court for a fresh decision.

7. Both the suits were heard together. The learned Trial Judge, refused to grant a decree for specific performance of the agreement of sale, but decreed the suit in favour of respondent No. 1 granting his alternative prayer for recovery for a sum of Rs. 8,260/- from the appellants herein. In arriving at the said conclusion, the learned Trial Judge noticed the averments made in the plaint which are as under:-

The Court of First Appeal was of the opinion that as the plaintiff/respondent failed to show his readiness and willingness to perform his part of contract as contained in the said agreement of sale dated 5.10.1964, so far as the new khasra Nos. are concerned, he was not entitled to a decree for specific performance of contract stating:

23. For the views we have taken, we are of the opinion that we in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India would refuse to interfere with the judgment of the High Court, save and except to the extent the decree passed in respect of two new Khasra Nos. namely 63- M/13/2(6-8) and 53M/13/1(0-16).

On deposit of the said sum, the Court should draw up a decree in terms of this judgment.

This appeal is allowed to the aforementioned extent. There shall, however, in the facts and circumstances of the case no order as to costs.