L-NLProc/TathyaNyaya-and-FactLegalLlama-NyayaScrape-Datasets huggingface dataset:
Pooja Rana vs State Of Haryana And Ors

2. The writ petition has been filed alleging that the petitioner was born on 2.9.1993, thus she was major and has a right to choose a person with whom she wants to settle in her life. Petitioner married one Sachin Kumar Rana, resident of Sambhal, Moradabad, (U.P.) of her free will. However, her parents and maternal uncle had registered a criminal case against her husband and they are harassing him. Thus, the petition has been filed for the aforesaid reliefs.

8. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that such a petition does not deserve to be entertained. It is accordingly dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner, if so advised, may move the High Court for appropriate relief by filing appropriate petition.
Commnr. Of Central Excise, Mumbai vs M/S. Fiat India (P) Ltd. & Anr

2. Facts in nutshell are: The respondents-assessees are the manufacturer of motor cars, i.e. Fiat Uno model cars. The said goods are excisable under chapter sub-heading No. 8703.90 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The said business was initially managed by M/s Premier Automobiles Ltd. However, M/s Premier Automobile surrendered its central excise registration on 6.4.1998. Thereafter, M/s Ind Auto Ltd. (now M/s Fiat India Ltd.) carried on the said business after obtaining fresh central excise registration. The assessees have filed several price declarations in terms of Rule 173C of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 1944 Rules’) declaring wholesale price of their cars for sale through whole sale depots during the period commencing from 27.05.1996 to 04.03.2001.

4. Since further enquiry was required to be conducted regarding the assessable value of the cars, the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, Kurla Division, vide his order dated 03.01.1997, had inter alia directed for the provisional assessment of the cars at a price which would include cost of production, selling expenses (including transportation and landing charges, wherever necessary from 28.09.1996) and profit margin, on the ground that the cars were not ordinarily sold in the course of wholesale trade as the cost of production is much more than their wholesale price, but were sold at loss for a consideration, that is, to penetrate the market which has been confirmed by the assessee vide its letter dated 30.10.1996 and during the course of enquiry under Section 14 of the Act read with sub Rule (3) of Rule 173C of the 1944 Rules. He had further directed the respondents to execute B-13 bond for payment of differential duty with surety or sufficient security, that is, 25% of the bond amount. Thereafter, respondents executed B-13 bond for Rs. 7.70 crores. However, the respondents showed their inability to submit 25% bond amount as a bank guarantee and requested the Revenue authorities to reduce the same. On such request, the Commissioner, vide letter dated 23.04.2007, directed the respondents to execute bank guarantee equivalent to 5% of the bond amount. Accordingly, the respondent furnished a bank guarantee of Rs. 38 lakhs which was subsequently renewed and later fresh bank guarantees in lieu of original were submitted by the respondents.

62. Reference to the Citations :

67. Reference to Valuation Rules :

71. In the result, the appeals require to be allowed and, accordingly, they are allowed and the impugned order is set aside and the order passed by the adjudicating authority is restored. No order as to costs.

AUGUST 29, 2012.
Salauddin Ahmed & Anr vs Samta Andolan

8. On 22nd August, 2008, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8104 of 2008 was filed by Bajrang Lal Sharma and others, challenging the said Notification dated 25th April, 2008, and the seniority list drawn up consequent thereto. While entertaining the writ petition, the Division Bench of the High Court stayed the said Notification dated 25th April, 2008.

15. On 31st March, 2011, the State Government constituted the Bhatnagar Committee to look into the different aspects relating to reservation in promotion and consequential seniority in terms of the judgment rendered in M. Nagaraj’s case (supra). Immediately, thereafter, on 13th April, 2011, a further contempt petition was filed by Shri Bajrang Lal Sharma. The Bhatnagar Committee Report was submitted to the State Government on 19th August, 2011 and on 11th September, 2011, the State Government, in exercise of its powers under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India and on the basis of the Bhatnagar Committee Report, framed a Rule with retrospective effect from 1st April, 1997, so that the vacuum which had been created could be filled up. The Rule also provided for roster-based promotion based on the posts available and also preserved the rights of the general category candidates who had earned promotions between the period 1st April, 1997 to 28th December, 2002, or the promotions which had actually been given effect to in terms of the repealed Notification dated 1st April, 1997.

19. While the various above-mentioned proceedings were being pursued, Writ Petition No.13491 of 2009 was filed challenging the vires of the 2008 Act. A prayer was also made to review the ceiling limit in favour of SC, ST and OBC candidates of 16%, 12% and 21%, respectively. The Notification dated 25th August, 2009, was also questioned. The subject matter of the Writ Petition was focussed on reservation to special backward classes and economically backward classes. By an order dated 22nd December, 2010, passed in the said Writ Petition, a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court stayed the operation of Sections 3 and 4 of the Act along with Notification dated 25th August, 2009, and the matter was referred to the Rajasthan State Backward Classes Commission, before whom the State Government was directed to place the quantifiable data within a period of one year. The stay granted was directed to continue till the matter was decided afresh.

45. We, accordingly, allow the appeals and set aside the aforesaid judgment, but with the further direction that the State and its authorities act in terms of the Report of the Bhatnagar Committee, in accordance with the decision rendered in M. Nagaraj’s case and in Suraj Bhan Meena’s case (supra), within two months from the date of communication of this judgment and order.

46. There will be no order as to costs.
Lavesh vs State (Nct Of Delhi)

3) Brief facts:

(a) The appellant herein is the elder brother of the husband of the deceased - Vibha. The appellant is engaged in the business of cutting of diamonds and getting them manufactured as per the specifications of his clients. He is married for the last seven years and has two children. According to him, he resides with his wife and children in the separate portion of the house in Paschim Puri, New Delhi whereas one portion is occupied by his parents and one by his younger brother.

(b) On 19.01.2010, younger brother of the appellant got married to Vibha (since deceased). He lived with his wife on the first floor of the same house. On 01.09.2011, Vibha, committed suicide. On the same day, the mother of the deceased lodged a complaint against the family members of the husband of the deceased with the Police Station at Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi.

(c) On the basis of the complaint, an FIR was registered vide No. 259/11 at Punjabi Bagh Police Station. On the same day, the husband and mother-in- law of the deceased were arrested. The appellant herein moved an application for anticipatory bail. The Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, by order dated 05.11.2011, dismissed the said application.

13) Taking note of all these aspects, in the light of the conditions prescribed in Section 438 of the Code and conduct of the appellant immediately after the incident as well as after the interim protection granted by this Court on 23.03.2012, we are of the view that the appellant has not made out a case for anticipatory bail. Unless free hand is given to the investigating agency, particularly, in the light of the allegations made against the appellant and his family members, the truth will not surface.

14) Under these circumstances, we are unable to accept the claim of the appellant. On the other hand, we agree with the contentions raised by the learned ASG and confirm the impugned order dated 05.12.2011 passed by the High Court in Bail Application No.1602/2011.

15) We make it clear that while upholding the rejection of the anticipatory bail, we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. We also clarify that after surrender, the appellant is free to move bail application before the Court concerned which may be disposed of in accordance with law.

16) With the above observation, the appeal is dismissed and the interim protection granted by this Court on 23.03.2012 stands vacated. The appellant is directed to surrender within a period of one week from today.

AUGUST 31, 2012.
State Of N.C.T.Of Delhi vs Ajay Kumar Tyagi

In respect of the same incident, a departmental proceeding was also initiated against the accused and the Article of Charges was served on him. In the departmental proceeding it was alleged that the accused “being a public servant in discharge of his official duties by corrupt and illegal means or otherwise, abusing his official position, demanded, accepted and obtained Rs. 1000/- (One Thousand) as illegal gratification other than legal remuneration from Sh. Surinder Singh S/o Shri Ram Bhajan r/o H.No. 432-A, Gali No. 2, 80 Sq. Yards, Village Mandoli, Delhi in consideration for giving a report on the water connection”.

It seems that no action was taken on the report of the inquiry officer due to pendency of the criminal case pending against the accused. Accordingly, he filed writ petition before the Delhi High Court inter alia praying for conclusion of the departmental proceeding. The submission made by the accused did not find favour with the High Court and by the judgment and order dated 2nd of February, 2007, it dismissed the writ petition inter alia observing as follows:

In view of these conflicting judgments, we are of the opinion that the matter has to be considered by a larger Bench.” This is how the matter is before us.
Samaj Parivartana Samudaya & Ors vs State Of Karnataka & Ors

3. The recommendations made in the aforesaid report of the CEC dated August 29, 2012 are accepted subject to any modification that the Court may feel necessary to make later on.

Such report should be filed within one month of leave to commence mining activity by the concerned leaseholder.

6. It is made clear that no mining operation under any of the mining leases shall take place unless all the statutory sanctions, permissions and approvals are subsisting. In case, after the resumption of mining operations in terms of this order any statutory sanction, permission or approval is lapsed or is not renewed in time, the mining operations would remain stopped until the required statutory sanction, permission or approval is duly granted.

8. Among the 18 “Category A” mines, there are six mining leases to which the general directions given above shall apply subject to further conditions as indicated below.

10. The interlocutory applications relating to the opening up of “Category A” mines are disposed of.

11. Put up the report of the Central Empowered Committee dated February 3, 2012 at an early date to expedite framing of the Comprehensive Environment Plan for Mining Impact Zone and matters related thereto.

September 3, 2012.
Gurgaon Gramin Bank vs Khazani & Anr

5. Smt. Khazani then filed a complaint bearing No.825 of 2004 before District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurgaon. The complaint was allowed by the Forum vide its order dated 26.07.2007 with cost stating as follows:

6. The bank, dissatisfied with the order by the District Forum, filed Appeal No.2404/2007 before State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, Panchkula. Rejecting the appeal, the appellate forum held as follows:

Adding this amount, the cost goes up to Rs.15,950/-. Remember, the buffalo had died 10 years back, but the litigation is not over, fight is still on for Rs.15,000/-.

14. We, in this case, find no error in the decisions taken by all fact finding authorities including the National Disputes Redressal Commission. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with cost of Rs.10,000/- to be paid by the bank to the first respondent within a period of one month. Resultantly, the Bank now has to spend altogether Rs.25,950/- for a claim of Rs.15,000/-, apart from to and fro travelling expenses of the Bank officials. Let God save the Gramins.
Rakhal Debnath vs State Of West Bengl

1. The first accused is the appellant. The appellant was proceeded against for offences under Sections 306 and 498A of IPC. The Trial Court acquitted the appellant and by the impugned order, the High Court while reversing the judgment of the Trial Court found the appellant guilty on both the charges and imposed the sentence of imprisonment of 10 years and also a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to suffer further one year rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 306 of IPC. He was also sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years apart from fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 498A of IPC. Both the sentences were directed to run consecutively. The High Court thus partly allowed the appeal of the State. The acquittal of the second accused, however, was confirmed by the High Court.

2. The case of the prosecution was that the appellant got married to the deceased Krishna as per Hindu rites and customs on 22.04.1987. The unfortunate incident of the death of the deceased Krishna occurred on 26.05.1987 when she was admitted to SSKM Hospital with severe burn injuries at 08.35 a.m. and she was declared dead at 08.37 a.m. In the hospital register it was noted by the doctor-P.W.19 that as per the statement of the appellant at 07.35 a.m. in the morning while the deceased was preparing tea and bread in the kitchen of the house she got burnt of the burning stove. However, according to the prosecution shortly after the marriage the appellant demanded a sum of Rs.40,000/- from the father of the deceased Krishna for the purpose of his business which was declined, that upset by the declining of his demand by the father of the deceased the appellant stated to have retorted then that he knew how to collect the money from his father-in-law through his wife, and that thereafter on 22.05.1987, the appellant pledged the jewels of deceased Krishna for a sum of Rs.11,000/-. The deceased Krishna was also stated to have been nurturing a grievance against the appellant about his illicit contacts with the second accused Anima who was none other than the niece of the appellant. The prosecution filed its final report before the Trial Court and, thereafter, the charges under Sections 306 and 498A of IPC were leveled against the appellant.

16. In the light of the above conclusion of ours, we do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed.

September 04, 2012
M/S.Fugro Survey (India) Pvt.Ltd vs Ramunia International Services Ltd

2. Despite service of notice, none appears on behalf of the respondent.

3. The petitioner and the respondent had entered into a Survey Contract on 8.4.2008 whereby the petitioner agreed to perform various survey for the respondent as per terms and conditions of payment prescribed under the said agreement. The survey was necessary for the performance of the tasks in the Main Contract.

5. It appears that disputes have arisen between the parties. It is the claim of the petitioner that the geographical survey was completed 100% and they were carrying out Soil Sampling using drop core which was completed to the extent of 53.8%. The petitioner raised Invoice No.INV-MAR-08-02/03/409 dated 15th July, 2008 in the sum of USD 565614.98 for the work done and thereafter vide letter dated 24th July, 2008 reminded the respondent for payment but there was no response from the respondent. Subsequently, a legal notice was sent to the respondent on 14.2.2009 calling upon the respondent to make the payment of the aforesaid amount together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of each invoice till the date of payment.

6. In spite of the legal notice dated 14.2.2009, no payment was received by the petitioner. Hence the petitioner issued legal notice dated 8.12.2010 invoking the arbitration clause. The petitioner also proposed to appoint one Mr. Pawan Aggarwal as the Arbitrator. The respondent, however, failed and neglected to confirm the appointment of the aforesaid Arbitrator. In fact, no reply to the aforesaid legal notice has been received by the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner moved an Arbitration Petition No.118 of 2011 in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay seeking appointment of an arbitrator. When the aforesaid petition came up for hearing before the High Court on 5.8.2011, the High Court permitted the petitioner to withdraw the arbitration petition as the petitioner would have to move this Court under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. It was in these circumstances that the present arbitration petition has been filed before this Court.

8. In view of the above, this petition deserves to be allowed and accordingly the arbitration petition is allowed. I hereby appoint Mr. Justice Arvind V. Savant, former Chief Justice of the Kerala High Court, (residing at A/20, Marble Arch-A, 9, Prithvi Raj Road, New Delhi-110011) as the sole Arbitrator.

.....................J (SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR) New Delhi;

September 7, 2012.
M/S.Sundaram Fin.Ltd vs Asst.Commissioner Of Income ...

For assessment years 1997-98 to 2000-01 orders were passed by Sales Tax Authorities levying lease tax on inter-State and import lease transactions executed in various States, (as deemed sales pursuant to the Forty-sixth Amendment to the Constitution) against which the assessee herein had filed appeals, which even today are pending before the High Court (some appeals, however, are pending before the Tribunal). For the assessment years 1986-87 to 1996- 97, the Tribunal has disallowed the assessee’s appeals against which the assessee has filed appeals before the High Court, which are also pending. These facts concern disputes raised by the assessee concerning its sales tax liabilities with which we are not concerned in this civil appeal. According to the assessee, in order to safeguard itself against, inter alia, the said sales tax liabilities, the assessee received Rs.36,47,585/- as contingent deposits from its customers which were “refundable” if the assessee was to succeed in its challenge to the levy of the said sales tax. According to the assessee the sum of Rs. 36,47,585/- is, therefore, an imprest with a liability to refund, that the said sum bears the character of “deposits” and hence not taxable in the year of receipt but is taxable only in the year in which the liability to refund the sales tax ceases (in case the assessee fails in the pending sales tax appeals).

Civil Appeal No.6388/2012 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 11552/2009 and Civil Appeal No.6389/2012 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 11191/2009) Leave granted.

In view of the order passed in Civil Appeal No. 5895 of 2008, both these appeals filed by the assessee are also dismissed with no order as to costs.

(With prayer for interim relief and office report) S.L.P. (C) No.11191 of 2009 (With prayer for interim relief and office report) Date: 11/09/2012 These Matters were called on for Orders today.

For Appellant(s) Mr. Preetesh Kapur,Adv.

Ms. Radha Rangaswamy,Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Rajiv Dutta,Sr.Adv.

Mr. Arijit Prasad,Adv.

Mr. Nedumaran,Adv.

Ms. Anil Katiyar,Adv.

for Mr. B.V. Balaram Das,Adv.

Hon'ble the Chief Justice pronounced the Order of the Bench comprising of His Lordship and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Madan B. Lokur.

Civil Appeal No.5895 of 2008:
Darbara Singh vs State Of Punjab

1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 6.2.2008 passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No.248-DB of 1998, by which the High Court affirmed the judgment and order dated 7.4.1998 passed by The Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur in Sessions Case No.11 of 1996, by which the appellant stood convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter called ‘IPC’) and was awarded the imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.5,000/- was imposed upon him. In default of payment of fine, he was further ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years. Co-accused Kashmir Singh @ Malla Singh @ Malli was also similarly convicted and sentenced.

They also examined other witnesses including Dr. Charanjit Singh (PW.11) and Investigating Officer Sukhwinder Singh, S.I. (PW.9).

C. In their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied their involvement in the incident and also examined 2 witnesses in their defence included Dr. Rachhpal Singh Rathor (DW.2) who had examined Bohar Singh, Kashmir Singh and Paramjit Singh in the hospital on the night of 28/29.10.1995.

E. Aggrieved, the appellant and Kashmir Singh preferred Criminal Appeal No. 248-DB/98 before the High Court which was dismissed vide impugned judgment and order dated 6.2.2008.

In view of the above, we do not find any force in this submission.

17. Even this submission does not tilt the balance in favour of the appellant. The manner in which injury no.1 has been caused clearly suggests that both the accused persons acted in furtherance of a common intention. Thus, we do not find any force in the aforesaid submission.

19. In view of the above, we do not find any force in the said appeal. Facts of the appeal do not warrant review of the findings recorded by the courts below. Appeal lacks merit and is dismissed accordingly.
State Of Gujarat & Ors vs Arvindkumar T.Tiwari & Anr

2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are as under:-

c) Aggrieved, the said order was challenged before the Division Bench, by the appellant, which was rejected vide impugned judgment and order dated 4.2.2008. Hence, this appeal.

11. A person who does not possess the requisite qualification cannot even apply for recruitment for the reason that his appointment would be contrary to the statutory rules is, and would therefore, be void in law.

Lacking eligibility for the post cannot be cured at any stage and appointing such a person would amount to serious illegibility and not mere irregularity.

Clause 11 thereof, provides that a dependant can, in fact, be given appointment on compassionate ground, on the basis of the pass marks obtained by him in the new Secondary School Certificate and in view thereof, as respondent No.1 is admittedly only 8th standard (fail), he is therefore, ineligible for the post.

14. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that since 1991, the eligibility criteria for a Class IV post was set as, the passing of the 10th standard, and as the said respondent had been unable to pass even the 8th standard, he was most certainly, not eligible to apply for the said post. In view of the law referred to hereinabove, it is neither desirable, nor permissible in law, for this court to issue direction to relax the said eligibility criteria and appoint respondent No.1 merely on humanitarian grounds.

15. Thus, the question framed by this Court with respect to whether the application for compassionate employment is to be considered as per existing rules, or under the rules as existing on the date of death of the employee, is not required to be considered.

16. In view of the above, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The judgment and order impugned herein is set aside. No order as to costs.