L-NLProc/TathyaNyaya-and-FactLegalLlama-NyayaScrape-Datasets huggingface dataset:
Gurmej Singh vs State Of Punjab & Anr

Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned single Judge of Punjab and Haryana High Court which gave certain directions qua the present appellant who was the investigating officer. One Sanjiv Kumar filed an appeal against the judgment dated 17/7/2005 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Kapurthala, whereby the said accused Sanjiv Kumar was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 395, 450, 342 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the `IPC'). The complainant Sukhraj Singh also filed a revision for payment of compensation. The prosecution version was that the accused Sanjiv Kumar was posted as ASI in Police Station City Phagwara. On 23/2/2002 at -2- about 7.30 p.m. he along with 4-5 unidentified persons had committed an offence of trespass by entering into building of M/s. Wadhawan Forex (P) Limited Phagwara. He allegedly committed dacoity by robbing Sukhraj Singh Director of that Company of the Indian currency and foreign currency. There were other aspects highlighted by the prosecution in the trial. We are not concerned with those presently.

The present appellant appeared as DW.1 and supported the version given in FIR No.19 dated 23/2/2002 registered by Gurmej Singh Inspector SHO. The High Court was of the view, while dealing with the appeal of Sanjiv Kumar, that it would have been fair and proper to involve the present appellant and all the persons named in FIR No.19 and to prosecute them and that if they had been present in the Court then the witnesses could say whether they were the other persons or not. It was also observed that when the other persons were not challaned or shown then the witnesses could always say about Sanjiv Kumar ASI and 4-5 unidentified persons. With these observations and after discussing the evidence, the High Court upheld the conviction of the accused -Sanjiv Kumar for offence punishable under Sections 395, 450 and 342 IPC. High Court was of the view that the sentence of imprisonment -3- imposed on the appellant Sanjiv Kumar was on the higher side especially when the appellant herein who was the main person involved in the matter had not been prosecuted. The Home Secretary of the State and the DGP were directed to look into the matter and take steps to prosecute the appellant herein in the appeals atleast for the offences for which Sanjiv Kumar appellant has been charged or at least for preparing false documents involving Sukhraj Singh and keeping him wrongfully confined.

Above being the position in law the observations and directions given by the High Cort qua the present appellant cannot be maintained and stand quashed.

The appeal is allowed.
Mal Singh vs State Of M.P

Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of the Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court at Indore affirming the conviction of the appellant recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kukshi ( District Dhar) in Sessions Trial No. 90/2000. One of the co- accused person Nanki Bai was acquitted. The accused were convicted for offences punishable under Sec.302 read with Sec.34 and Sec.307 read with Sec.34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short `the IPC'). They were also convicted in terms of Sec.323 read with Sec.34 IPC. The latter two convictions were recorded as the accused persons inflicted injuries to Thavlibai PW.3 and Thakur Singh PW.2.

These injuries clearly show that the murder was clearly intended. That being so, the conclusion of the High Court does not warrant interference. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.

We record our appreciation to the assistance rendered by Ms. Indira Sawhney who appeared as amicus curiae.
Batakrushna Parida vs State Of Orissa

Crl.Appeal Nos.6-7/2003 -2- the respondents as well as the conviction of the present appellant in terms of Section 304 Part II, IPC in place of the Section 302 IPC. The present appellant filed an appeal questioning the order of conviction. Both the appeals were placed together and disposed of by the common judgment.

It is to be noted that the High Court itself confirming the view of the Trial Court, observed that the firing was done on the spur of the moment and there was a free fight among the other villagers. The High Court ought not to have held that the offence committed by the Crl.Appeal Nos.6-7/2003 -10- accused was relatable to Section 302 IPC. In the circumstances, we set aside the the impugned judgment of the High Court and restore the order of the Trial Court. The accused is directed to surrender to custody forthwith to serve out the remainder of sentence, if any. The appeals are dismissed accordingly.

April 28, 2009.
Union Of India & Ors vs M/S Green Alloys P.Ltd

2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court directing release of the goods seized from the respondent on furnishing undertaking to pay the duty or other dues which may be found due without furnishing any cash security or bank guarantee for the value of the goods. Certain other directions were given which we are not primarily concerned with. By the Writ Petition (CWP No. 17287 of 2008) the respondent had sought for a direction for release of raw material seized by the Anti Evasion Branch of the Central Excise, Faridabad on 15.9.2008 and also to quash letter of seizure on 24.9.2008 alongwith Panchnama.

10. The High Court appears to have decided that aspect finally even though that was not the stage for doing so and that was beyond the scope for adjudication of the writ petition. In the circumstances we direct that the 4 respondent shall be permitted to release goods on furnishing cash security or bank guarantee for 25% of the value of goods. The same shall be done within a period of four weeks. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.

..................J. (ASOK KUMAR GANGULY) New Delhi, April 28, 2009 5
State Of U.P vs Hari Chand

3. After completion of investigation charge sheet was filed. The defence plea was one of the denial and alleged false implication. Prosecution primary relied on the evidence of three eye-witnesses PWs 1, 2 and 3. PW.5 was the doctor who conducted the autopsy.

4. The High Court by a practically non-reasoned order directed acquittal. The appeal filed by the respondents was allowed after referring to the evidence of the eye witnesses by concluding as follows:

16. The inevitable result is that the appeal deserves to be allowed which we direct. The respondent Hari Chand shall surrender to custody forthwith to serve remainder of sentence. The appeal is allowed.
M.D.,Orissa Coop.Housing Corpn. Ltd vs K.S. Sudarshan

:3: Thus the short question that survives for consideration in this appeal is whether all the three Fora were justified in awarding interest to the complainant on account of non-development and non-delivery of the plots. Having carefully gone through the orders passed by the three Fora, we are of the opinion that there is no merit in the present appeal. In its order dated 11th May, 2000, the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, (for short the 'District Forum') recorded a specific finding that the appellant herein had abandoned the development work and thus there was deficiency in service by them. It has been noted that the complainant had deposited an amount of Rs.1,03,215/- but the possession of the plot, for which the said amount had been paid, was not delivered to him. Accordingly, the District Forum directed that in case of delivery of possession of the plot the complainant shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 16% per annum on the said amount from 26th October, 1995 i.e. the date of last deposit till the date of refund i.e. 16th April, 1999. As noted earlier, the State Commission, while affirming the order passed by the District Forum reduced the interest from 16% to 12% per annum. The said order of the State Commission is maintained by the National Commission.

..4/-

:4: It is manifest from the orders passed by the District Forum as well as the State Commission that undoubtedly there was deficiency in service by the appellant Society inasmuch as it has failed to develop the land for which it had accepted money from its members including the respondent. In view of the said finding, no fault can be found with the award of interest by the three Fora on account of the said deficiency.

Accordingly, being devoid of any merit, the appeal is dismissed. Since the respondent has not appeared there will be no order as to costs. SLP(C) NO.18981/2005:
H.U.D.A. & Anr vs Satish Hans

2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (in short `National Commission'). By the impugned order the Commission dismissed the petition. Challenge in the revision petition before the National Commission was to the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panchkula (in short `District Forum') as confirmed by the order passed by the State Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, (in short the `State Commission'). The complaint was filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short the `Act'). The grievance was that the complainant purchased a shop in an auction in 1993 and had deposited a sum of Rs.82,000/-. He had further deposited a sum of Rs.2,07,000/-. Since further payment was not forthcoming there was no area development and the appellant authority resumed the plot. Against this, appeal was filed before the Administrator of the appellant authority who allowed the appeal and fixed schedule of payments. An undertaking was filed before the appellate authority by way of an undertaking that he was ready to pay the balance amount as per HUDA policy. The complaint was filed by the complainant for rectifying statement of accounts by working out the amount payable by charging 10% p.a. rate of interest against the compound rate of interest as demanded by the appellant authority. The District Forum directed the appellant to re-calculate the entire amount with simple interest @15% p.a. as mentioned in the allotment letter and not with compound interest. The appellant filed appeal before the State Commission which was dismissed. The National Commission did not find any substance in the revision petition and held that the National Commission has taken the view that simple 2 interest was to be charged and not otherwise. Therefore, the revision petition was dismissed.

7. The matter is remitted to the National Commission. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. No costs.
Ranbir Singh & Ors vs State Of Haryana

2. The prosecution version is this: on September 26, 1990, Suresh (PW-12) took his buffaloes to Delhi Canal. The buffaloes entered into the canal water. At the same time Ranbir (A-1) also brought his buffaloes to the canal. Ranbir asked Suresh to take out the buffaloes from the canal but Suresh refused to do so on the ground that the canal water was deep. At this, Ranbir pushed Suresh into the canal. Suresh came out of the canal water and went home crying and narrated the incident to his brother Krishan (PW-1). Krishan protested with Ranbir in this regard in the evening which led to an altercation between them. Ranbir inflicted some injuries to Krishan which was reported to the police in the night of September 26, 1990. On September 27,1990, Krishan is said to have been medically examined. On September 28,1990, at 2 about 8.00 A.M., PW-1 and his uncle Balwan(deceased) were returning after answering the call of nature. When they were about to take turn to the street to their house, Ranbir (A-1), Balbir (A-2), Shiv Kumar (A-3), Sadhu (A-4) came out of the Gher of Ram Sarup (A-6). A-1 was armed with an axe while A-2 had Jailwa in his hand, A-3 and A- 4 were armed with lathies. A-1, A-2, A-3 and A-4 surrounded Balwan and exhorted to finish him off as Krishan had escaped earlier. Seeing Balwan surrounded by A-1, A-2, A-3 and A-4, PW-1, Rohtas (PW-13) and Sahab Singh (PW-11) came running from their respective Gher. A-1 inflicted an axe blow on the head of Balwan while A-2 inflicted jailwa blow from the log side on the head of Balwan. A-3 and A-4 also inflicted lathi blows on Balwan. Balwan fell down. PW-1, PW-11 and PW-13 intervened. At this, A-3 and A-4 gave lathi blows to them also. A-2 attacked PW-11 as well. PW-1, PW-11 and PW-13 snatched lathies from A-3 and A-4. By that time number of people had arrived; seeing them A-1, A-2, A-3 and A-4 ran away from the spot. At that time, Lekh Ram (A-5), Ram Sarup (A-6), Bhalle Ram (A-7), Krishan son of 3 Bhalle Ram (A-8) surrounded PW-1, PW-11 and PW-13 but PW-1, PW-11 and PW-13 attacked them by lathies which they had snatched from A-3 and A-4. PW-1, PW- 11 and PW-13 took Balwan to Primary Health Centre, Ganaur in an unconscious condition but he died on the way. The doctor on duty there declared Balwan dead.

28. We are informed that the appellants have already suffered imprisonment of almost nine years. In the circumstances, the sentence undergone, for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part I IPC, shall meet the ends of justice. Their conviction and sentence under other offences is maintained.

29. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed in part. The appellants be released forthwith, if not required in any other offence.

......................J 16 (D.K. Jain) ......................J (R.M. Lodha) New Delhi, April 30, 2009 17
M/S. Sardar Estates vs Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd

The respondent, which is the owner and landlord of premises no.13/46, Scindia House, Connaught Circus, New Delhi filed an eviction petition against the appellant, who is the tenant, before the Rent Controller, Delhi in 1981. That petition was decreed on 12.5.1993 on the ground of subletting. The appellant filed an appeal before the Rent Control Tribunal which was dismissed on 22.9.1998. Thereafter he filed a second appeal which was dismissed by the Delhi High Court on 31.1.2000. Against that order he filed an SLP in this Court which was dismissed as withdrawn by order dated 8.12.2000. He then filed a Review Petition before the Delhi 2 High Court which was dismissed on 9.2.2001. Against that order the appellant filed another SLP in this Court which was dismissed on 9.4.2001. By that order he was directed to vacate the premises and handed over physical possession to the landlord on or before 31.10.2001 subject to the usual undertaking to be filed within four weeks. However, the appellant did not file the undertaking.

In execution proceedings the appellant filed an objection on 16.3.2001 which was rejected by the Executing Court on 14.9.2001. Against the order dated 14.9.2001 the appellant filed an appeal which was dismissed as withdrawn on 1.11.2001. He filed a fresh objection on 8.11.2001 before the Executing Court which was rejected on 5.7.2002. Against that order he filed a First Appeal before the Rent Control Tribunal which was dismissed on 20.7.2002. Against the order of the Rent Control Tribunal he filed a Second Appeal before the Delhi High Court which was dismissed on 10.9.2002 by the impugned judgment. Thereafter he filed the present appeal before us.

Hence, we dismiss this appeal and impose a cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) on the appellant which shall be paid to the respondent within two months from today. The appellant shall also hand over the premises in question, which is in his possession, to the landlord within three months from today failing which he will be evicted by police force.

April 30, 2009
Ranjana vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors

In order to appreciate the issue, requiring determination, a few material facts may be stated:

caste, but her family professed Christianity inasmuch as the appellant was baptized on 27th October, 1977, when she was one year old; she was married in a Christian family and her contention that she had embraced Buddhism on 23rd August, 1988 was not established. Thus, her claim that she belonged to "Mahar" caste (a Scheduled Caste) was rejected.

Aggrieved by the order of the Committee, the appellant preferred a writ petition in the High Court, challenging the correctness of the findings of the Committee. It was pleaded on behalf of the appellant that she was born in a "Hindu Mahar" family; her school record shows that she was a Hindu; later on she embraced Buddhism on 23rd August, 1988; there was no Baptism ceremony on 27th October, 1977 and that her marriage as also of her brothers and sisters were solemnised as per Boudh traditions. 3 Tracing the origin of "Mahars", one of the socially backward classes in Rural Maharashtra, the High Court noted the factum of large scale conversions of socially backward classes in the rural areas of Maharashtra to Christianity. The High Court also noticed the amendment carried out in the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950, by the Act No.15 of 1999, whereby and whereunder the persons who had converted themselves to "Buddhism" were held eligible for the benefit of reservation as available to the Scheduled Castes from 1999 onwards. Taking into consideration the evidence on record, including the entries in the Baptism Register, the High Court observed thus:

The High Court, thus, rejected the plea of the appellant that she was neither born in a Christian family nor she professed Christianity at any time. Similarly, her stand that she had converted to Buddhism also did not find favour with the High Court. Consequently, appellant's writ petition was dismissed. Hence, this appeal.

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment dated 28th November, 2002 is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the High Court for fresh adjudication on the issue noted above. We may clarify that we have not expressed any final opinion on the merits of appellant's stand.

The appeal stands disposed of accordingly, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
Ranbir Singh Dhanjal vs Aruna Gupta & Ors

This appeal of the year 2002 has been filed by the appellant in-person, who is the former husband of respondent No.1. The claim in the appeal is that a sum of rupees twenty two lakhs and odd, which the appellant claims he has spent on his wife, should be defrayed by her to him. The plaintiff appellant claimed reliefs in the following term:

2. The trial Court, in its judgment dated 18th September 1999, partly decreed the suit inasmuch that a decree for Rs.15,29,417.15p. was granted, though the suit qua the claim for specific performance was dismissed. The appellate Court, however, allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit in toto. This order has been affirmed by the Division Bench in a Letters Patent Appeal. The said orders have been challenged in this appeal by special leave.

4. In this view of the matter, we have no option but to dismiss the appeal in default. No costs.
Commissioner Of Customs vs M/S Ferodo India Pvt. Ltd

2. For the sake of convenience we state the facts occurring in Civil Appeal No. 8426/02 Commnr. of Customs v. M/s Ferodo India Pvt. Ltd.

3. The buyer is the manufacturer of brake liners and brake pads in India. On 8.9.1995, a technical assistance and trade mark agreement ("TAA" for short) was entered into between the respondent (buyer/licensee) and M/s T & N International Ltd., UK (foreign collaborator/licensor). Under the said agreement, the licensor claimed to be in possession of certain secret processes, formula and information. Under the agreement, the licensor agreed to permit manufacture of brake liners and brake pads (licensed products) by the licensee. Under the agreement, the licensor agreed to disclose the relevant secret processes, formula and information to the licensee. Under the agreement, the licensee was required to import/buy raw material and capital goods from the licensor. Under the agreement, the licensee was obliged to pay a licence fee along with royalty, based on the net sales value of licensed products sold, consumed or otherwise disposed of.

Method 5 Computed Value (Rule 7A) Computed value determines the customs value on the basis of the cost of production of the goods being valued plus an amount for profit and general expenses usually reflected in sales from the country of exportation to the country of importation of goods of the same class or kind. It is, therefore, the total sum of production cost and profit and general expenses.

Application of Rule 9(1)(c) to the facts of the present case

24. One of the questions which arises for determination in this civil appeal is whether reliance could be placed by the Department only on the Consideration Clause in the TAA for arriving at the conclusion that payment for royalty was includible in the price of the important components.

26. For the aforestated reasons, we find no infirmity in the impugned orders of the Tribunals. Accordingly, the civil appeals filed by the Department are hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.
T.A. Hameed vs M. Viswanathan

2. The appeal is dismissed as having become infructuous. No order as to costs.

4. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the present appeal are that a Reference was made by the Division Bench of the High Court of Kearala, which reads as under :-

11. In the case at hand also, almost an identical situation had taken place that a reference was made by the learned Division Bench of the Kerala High Court to the Full Bench and the Full Bench after answering the reference went on to decide the revision petition itself on merits, which the Full Bench had no jurisdiction to do as the revision petition was not referred to the Full Bench for decision. Since, only reference was made to the Full Bench, the Full Bench should have answered the question referred to it and remitted the matter to the Division Bench for deciding the revision petition on merits. Consequently, we set aside that part of the impugned order dated 31.1.2003 whereby the Full Bench has dismissed the revision petition filed by the appellant herein. We make it clear that we are not expressing any opinion with regard to the issue which was referred by the Division Bench to the Full Bench. We are only examining the matter whether the Full Bench could have disposed of the revision petition itself or not. In these circumstances, we allow this appeal to the extent that the order of the Full Bench deciding the civil revision petition filed by the appellant herein was decided on merits by the Full Bench was not correct. The revision petition filed by the appellant shall stand revived and be placed for hearing before a Division Bench, which shall dispose of the same in accordance with law after hearing both the parties. Since the matter is old, we request the Division Bench to dispose of the revision petition expeditiously.

12. The appeal is allowed to the extent indicted hereinabove. No order as to costs.