L-NLProc/TathyaNyaya-and-FactLegalLlama-NyayaScrape-Datasets huggingface dataset:
Sunita Tokas vs New Inda Insurance Co. Ltd.

2. The factual matrix in which the present Civil Appeal arises is briefly stated as under :– 2.1. The son of the Appellants viz. Pradeep Tokas was a student who was a trained swimmer, and had won prizes in State­level events.

2.2. On 11.05.2004, Pradeep Tokas was sitting on a two­ wheeler as a pillion rider, while travelling on the Upper Ridge Road towards Karol Bagh, New Delhi. At 1:05 a.m., the said two­wheeler met with an accident with a stationary Truck bearing Registration No. HR­51­GA­0525, which was not visible at night. The truck was standing in the middle of the road without any indicator lights on. The two­wheeler dashed against the stationary truck, and both Pradeep Tokas and the driver died on the spot. Pradeep Tokas was 21 years old at the time of his death. 2 2.3. The Appellants herein are the parents of the deceased, who filed the Claim Petition before the MACT, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi claiming compensation on the death of their son.

2.4. The MACT vide Award dated 25.05.2009 granted compensation of Rs. 14,87,140/­ along with interest @7% p.a. to the Appellant ­Claimants. The compensation was awarded under the following heads :–

4.9. The High Court erred in reducing the notional income of the deceased from Rs. 16,246/­ as awarded by the MACT, and reduced it to Rs. 7,500/.

6. The Respondent – Insurance Company is directed to pay the enhanced amount of Rs. 11,39,400/­ to the Appellants within 1 month from the date of this judgment. The enhanced amount shall carry Simple Interest @7% p.a. from the date of filing the Claim Petition till the date of realization.

13 The Civil Appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms. All pending Applications, if any, are accordingly disposed of. Ordered accordingly.

August 16, 2019.
P. T. Sreenarayanan Unni vs State Of Kerala .

2. The factual matrix in which the present Civil Appeals arises is briefly stated as under :

2.7. The Forest Tribunal vide Order dated 11.07.2000 dismissed the O.A. filed by the Appellants. It was held that there was no evidence to show that the land in Survey No. 186/1A1 was cultivated with any agricultural crops prior to 10.05.1971. As a consequence, the Appellants were not entitled to claim the exemption under Section 3(2) on the ground that the land was under their personal cultivation. 2.8. Aggrieved by the aforesaid Order, the Appellants filed MFA No. 389/2002 before the High Court. The High 6 Court vide impugned final Judgment and Order dated 01.01.2008 dismissed the Appeal.

Explanation:­ For the purpose of this clause, a land shall be deemed to be waste land notwithstanding the existence thereon of scattered trees or shrubs.”

We however, affirm the exemption granted by the High Court under Section 3(3) with respect to 7.85 acres of land. In light of the aforesaid discussion, the Civil Appeals are dismissed. All pending Applications, if any, are accordingly disposed of.

Ordered accordingly.

August 16, 2019.
Alpana Gupta vs Apg Towers Pvt. Ltd

3. These appeals involve a short point as would be clear from the facts mentioned hereinbelow.

13. It is with these observations and liberty granted to the parties, we allow CAs @ SLP(c) Nos.31539­31540/2017 filed by the plaintiff and set aside the impugned order as also the order passed by the Trial Court.

15. In the light of the order passed above in CAs @ SLP(c)Nos.31539­31540/2017), CAs @ SLP© Nos.5318­5319/2018 are disposed of.

August 19, 2019 7
Pramod Suryabhan Pawar vs The State Of Maharashtra

2. By its judgement dated 7 February 2019, the High Court of Judicature at Bombay dismissed an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 19731. The appellant sought the quashing of a First Information Report2 registered against him on 17 May 2016 with the Panvel City Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 376, 417, 504 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code3 and Sections 3(1) (u), (w) and 3(2) (vii) of The Scheduled 1 “CrPC” 2 “FIR” 3 “IPC” 1 Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989 (as amended by the Amendment Act, 2015)4. The second respondent is the complainant.

3. The allegations in the FIR are summarised thus:

This led to heated arguments. However, the appellant used to regularly visit 3 her house at Panvel until March 2015, each time engaging in sexual intercourse with her;

(vi) On 27 and 28 August 2015 and 22 October of 2015 the appellant sent the complainant certain WhatsApp messages. The complainant alleges that these messages were insulting and attacked her on the grounds of her caste. The messages stated:

Subsequently the complainant became aware that the appellant had married on 1 May 2016. On 17 May 2016 she filed the FIR.

11 The primary contention advanced by the complainant is that the appellant engaged in sexual relations with her on the false promise of marrying her, and therefore her “consent”, being premised on a “misconception of fact” (the promise to marry), stands vitiated.

The appellant is a Deputy Commandant in the CRPF while the complainant is an Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax.

August 21, 2019.
West Bengal State Electricity ... vs M/S Orion Metal Pvt. Ltd.

The respondent-company is a centralized bulk high voltage consumer of electricity in the Hooghly region, with a contracted load of 1450 KVA. After service of notice on the 1st respondent on 28.10.2016, inspection was made by the Superintending Engineer, Divisional Engineer, Divisional Engineer (Manager), Assistant Engineer of Chandanangore Division, in the premises of the respondent herein.

(d) On the basis of criminal complaint made by the Superintending Engineer (Commercial), a criminal case has been registered against the respondent-company and the police have submitted a charge-sheet in the criminal case.

15. For the aforesaid reasons, this civil appeal is allowed and the judgment and order dated 18.12.2017 passed by the High Court of Calcutta in F.M.A. No.520 [email protected](c) No.22207/2018 27 of 2017 and the corrected order dated 07.02.2018, are set aside. No order as to costs.

[R. Subhash Reddy] NEW DELHI, August 21, 2019
Ajith K. vs Aneesh K.S.

1 2 On 16 August 1972, the Government of Kerala in exercise of its powers under Section 11 of the Kerala Municipal Common Service Rules 1967, specified the method of recruitment and qualifications for posts in the Municipal Common Service. The posts were specified in an annexure to the order. The post of Health Inspector / Food Inspector Grade-II was among those posts and the qualifications were:

6 On 20 February 2017, KPSC filed a reply before the Tribunal stating that the two year DHIC is a higher qualification in the same faculty and that it had accordingly been decided to consider candidates possessing a DHIC for the post of Junior Health Inspector Grade-II by adhering to the provisions of Rule 10(a)(ii) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules 19584. On 24 May 2017, the office of the Director of Health Service addressed a communication to the Principal Secretary, Local Self Government Institutions Department, Thiruvananthapuram to consider candidates with a DHIC qualification for the post of Junior Health Inspector in the Municipal Common Service. On 7 July 2017, the Principal Secretary to the Government in the Local Self Government (EU) Department addressed a 3 ―SIDC‖ 4 ―KSSSR‖ 4 communication to the Secretary, KPSC stating that, in the view of the State Government, the DHIC qualification can be reckoned to be a higher qualification in comparison with the qualifications prescribed in the notification. The Tribunal was subsequently informed of this decision.

16 The reference to the diploma being an additional qualification is extraneous to Rule 10(a)(ii). The reference to a diploma being acceptable in the Health Department is again an extraneous consideration. Ex facie, it is evident that in coming to the conclusion extracted above, there was no application of mind to the requirements contained in Rule 10(a)(ii). There was no determination of equivalence by any executive order or standing order of the State Government. Nor was there any finding that a DHIC pre-supposes the acquisition of the lower qualification. KPSC has not carried out any exercise as required by the provisions of the rule. 17 In the above view of the matter, we are of the view that the judgment of the High Court does not suffer from error. The appeals shall stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.

August 21, 2019.
Rameshwar . vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

2. Brief facts which led to filing of this appeal are:-

Five pellets were found inside the spinal cord of deceased and all these pellets were sealed and handed over to Police. PW-10 issued post-mortem certificate (Ex.P6) opining that deceased died of the injuries and injury No.1 was sufficient to cause death. Appellant No.1-Rameshwar was arrested on 23.04.1984 and on being interrogated, he gave the statement which led to recovery of axe in the gonad under Ex.-P7-seizure memo. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellants and other four accused in the aforesaid offence.

5. The High Court held that even though there are contradictions in the statement of PW-1 recorded in the court and her statement in the FIR, since the prosecution has proved that the appellants have shared the common intention to commit the murder of the deceased, the court can invoke Section 34 IPC and in such a situation, it was not necessary for the prosecution to prove that the gun shot injuries which has resulted in the death of the deceased was caused by which of 5 the two appellants. The High Court affirmed the conviction of the appellants under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment imposed upon them. Being aggrieved, the appellants are before us.

13. In the result, the conviction of appellant No.2-Balaram under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment imposed upon him is affirmed and this appeal is dismissed qua appellant No.2. Since the appellant No.1-Rameshwar has passed away, the appeal against him is dismissed as abated. The appellant No.2 shall surrender within a period of six weeks from today to serve the remaining period of sentence, failing which he shall be taken into custody.

August 21, 2019.
Air India Express Ltd. vs Capt. Gurdarshan Kaur Sandhu

3.3 In view of the above, it has been decided by the Government that any act on the part of pilots including resignation from the airlines without a minimum notice period of six months, which may result into last minute cancellation of flights and harassment to passengers, would be treated as an act against the public interest. Civil Appeal No. 6567 of 2019 @ SLP (Civil) No.28182 of 2018 Air India Express Ltd. and Others Vs. Capt. Gurdarshan Kaur Sandhu 5 3.4 It has, therefore, been decided that every pilot working in an air transport undertaking shall give a ‘Notice Period’ of at least six months to the employer indicating his intention to leave the job. During the notice period, neither the pilot shall refuse to undertake the flight duties assigned to him nor shall the employer deprive the pilot of his legitimate rights and privileges with respect to the assignment of his duties.

5. The facts leading to the filing of the Writ Petition in the High Court were as under:-

d) On 03.07.2017 the respondent sent a communication through e-mail to Chief of Operations of the first appellant submitting her resignation. The relevant assertions in the letter were as under:-

13. The CAR acknowledges that it takes considerable period to train a pilot to operate an aircraft and that as a part of the training, the new incumbent will be required to pass technical and performance examinations and will have to undergo simulator and flying training and to undertake skill test to satisfy the requirements. Even after imparting of such training, said person would function only as a co-pilot till he reaches Civil Appeal No. 6567 of 2019 @ SLP (Civil) No.28182 of 2018 Air India Express Ltd. and Others Vs. Capt. Gurdarshan Kaur Sandhu 25 the level of expertise required of a pilot. The CAR states that the resignation without minimum notice of six months could result in last minute cancellation of flights and harassment to passengers. As the pilots are highly skilled personnel, a decision was taken that any act on part of the pilots including resignation from the airlines without minimum notice period of six months be treated as an act against public interest. The CAR, therefore, provides:-

16. In the circumstances, we hold that the respondent could not have withdrawn the letter of resignation dated 03.07.2017. We, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the judgment and orders passed by the Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court and dismiss Writ Petition (Civil) No.1991 of 2018. No order as to costs.
Chintambaramma vs The State Of Karnataka

4. Initially, the allegations against the appellants were of demand of dowry and that the assailants were Adinarayana, accused No. 4 and Venkatesna, accused No. 5 who committed the act of murder in conspiracy with the other accused. The relatives of the deceased were examined as Anjanamma (PW-1), Obalesh (PW-3), Shankar (PW-4), Harikrishna (PW-6) and Vijayakumar (PW-7). They have not supported the prosecution case as they turned hostile. There is no evidence of demand of dowry or cruelty on account of demand of dowry. The learned trial court recorded the following findings:

10. The High Court found that the Investigating Officer has played a dubious role in introducing a theory of criminal conspiracy and this act is calculated to help and save the real offenders. The Investigating Officer botched up the investigation and instituted false charges and convicted the appellants although the prosecution was launched only against accused Nos. 4 and 5 as the assailants with conspiracy against role of the appellants being as of conspirators.

15. The conviction of the appellants is probably on the basis of the lack Page 7 of 11 of explanation of the injuries suffered on the person of the deceased. However, we find from the statement of Saroja (PW-20) that there were five persons who were performing Puja and two of them were Swamis. Thus, the appellants cannot be held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. The chain of circumstances has not been completed so as to lead only one conclusion that the appellants and the appellants alone were responsible for committing the crime.

AUGUST 22, 2019.

Page 11 of 11
Sudru vs The State Of Chhattisgarh

2. The prosecution story in brief is thus, Janki Bai NARENDRA PRASAD Date: 2019.08.22 17:23:01 IST Reason: is the second wife of the appellant. First wife of the appellant had died. The marriage between the appellant 2 and Janki Bai was solemnized seven years prior to the date of incident. They were having three issues from the wedlock. On 22.7.2000 the appellant had come home in a drunken condition and had a quarrel with Janki Bai. During the quarrel Janki Bai took her two children and went to the house of her brother-in-law. The appellant and their elder son Ajit remained in the house. On 23.7.2000 when she returned to the house, she saw that Ajit was lying on mat and his body was covered with a blanket. Upon removing blanket, she saw Ajit in dead condition. Blood was oozing from his mouth. She called her father-in-law Lakhmu. Injuries were seen on the neck of the deceased. An FIR came to be lodged in Police Station Dantewada by Janki Bai. Upon completion of investigation, chargesheet came to be filed in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dantewada, who in turn committed the case to the Court of Sessions Judge, Jagdalpur. The case was received on transfer by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jagdalpur, who conducted the trial. The learned Trial Court passed an order of conviction thereby, convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under section 302 of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for one year. Being aggrieved 3 thereby, appeal was filed before the High Court of Chattisgarh at Bilaspur. The High Court dismissed the appeal. Hence, the appellant filed the present appeal in this Court.

10. Taking into consideration these aspects of the matter, we do not find that the learned Trial Court and the High Court have erred in recording the finding of guilt and order of conviction. The appeal is found to be without merit and as such is dismissed.

AUGUST 22, 2019.
Seenivasan vs The State By Inspector Of Police

3. The aforesaid Crl.O.P. was filed by accused nos.5 Digitally signed by to 7 before the High Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. ANITA MALHOTRA Date: 2019.08.23 17:12:15 IST Reason: to quash the proceedings issued against them. By the 1 Crl.A. @ S.L.P.(Crl.)No.10115/18 impugned order, the Crl.O.P. was dismissed qua the appellant and allowed so far as accused no.7 is concerned by quashing the proceedings. The 5 th accused has died on 13.08.2016, as such, it was observed that no case subsists against her.

5. The Quash Petition was filed by accused nos.5 to 7 before the High Court mainly on the ground that they are not the members of the family of the complainant and they were residing at a different address, namely, 751, Big Bazar Street, Coimbatore whereas accused nos.1 to 4 were residing at 880, Big Bazar Street, Coimbatore. 2 Crl.A. @ S.L.P.(Crl.)No.10115/18 Appellant was sought to be prosecuted along with A-1 to A-4 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC); Sections 4 and 6(b) of Dowry Prohibition Act and under Section 406 of the IPC.

8. In the aforesaid circumstances, we allow this appeal and set aside the impugned order to the extent of dismissing the petition filed in Crl.O.P.No.16967 of 2010 on the file of High Court of Judicature at Madras and consequently quash the proceedings qua the appellant in C.C. No.196 of 2009 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.1, Coimbatore.

9. It is made clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the allegations made against A-1 to A-4. It is open for the trial court to record its own findings after trial.

August 23, 2019 5
Union Of India vs Brig. Devinder Singh

3) The respondent herein was promoted to the post of Brigadier in May, 1998 and assumed the Command of 70 Infantry Brigade then deployed in Kashmir Valley in counter insurgency duties in operation Rakshak in the year 1999. His Brigade Headquarter was associated to Ladakh Sector subsequently. As per the respondent, he forecasted the pattern of Kargil intrusion but the same was summarily dismissed by his senior officers.

5) It may be stated that the above said Reports are prepared during the action and after the War is completed for review and for further studies at subsequent stages for strategic purposes. Such documents are confidential and are not in public domain.

8) We find the issue raised is more to take credit by the Officers engaged in Operation Vijay. The reports do not have any civil consequences, therefore, is not subject to judicial review by the Tribunal or the Courts. The order having civil consequences has already been set aside and not appealed by the appellants. Therefore, maintenance of records for future strategic studies is not open to challenge in exercise of power of judicial review.

11) Consequently, the direction of the Tribunal to correct the After-

Action Report or other such reports cannot be sustained and is, therefore, set aside. The appeals are accordingly allowed.

AUGUST 23, 2019.
Yogesh Nagraoji Ugale vs State Of Maharashtra Through Principal ...

2. The background facts briefly stated are as under:

2.2.Respondent No. 2 – the Education Officer vide letter dated 06.05.2013 called upon the Appellant for a hearing on 17.05.2013 to consider the application for appointment on Compassionate Grounds. Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 remained absent from the hearing on 17.05.2013, which was re­scheduled for 31.05.2013.

The Government vide Resolution dated 22.03.2012 relaxed the ban for candidates in the waiting list of appointments on compassionate ground till 31.12.2011. 2.5.The Government of Maharashtra vide Resolution dated 01.03.2014 bearing No. AKP­1014/Pra. Kra. 34/8 revised its 3 decision dated 22.08.2005 which had restricted recruitment to 5% in Group ‘C’ and ‘D’ on the basis of compassionate appointment, and increased the limit to 10% of posts. 2.6.Since the representations of the Appellant were not granted, W.P. No. 3520 of 2014 was filed by the Appellant before the High Court, praying inter alia for the issuance of a direction to Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to appoint the Appellant on compassionate grounds.

7. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, we allow the Appeal, and set aside the Judgment passed by the High Court on 19.11.2014 in W.P. No. 3520 of 2014. Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are directed to submit the proposal for appointment of the Appellant before the Respondent No. 2 – 7 the Education Officer within one month, so that necessary orders can be passed on the application of the appellant. Ordered accordingly.

Pending applications, if any, are accordingly disposed of.
Ketan Suresh Pawar vs Yuvraj Sandeepan Sawant

3. The brief facts leading to the case put forth by the prosecution is that in the year 2014 one Yogesh Ahir lodged a complaint against Sunita Tupsaundarya, Ramesh Chavan, Jitendra Gadia and Yuvraj Sawant Patil. In the complaint it is alleged that the complainant was in search of a premises for purchase and had accordingly traced the Estate Agent namely the Jitendra Gadia who was dealing in bank auction flats. The said Estate Agent had represented to the complainant about the Special Quota Scheme under which the premises could be purchased SLP(Crl) No.4158/2019 Page 2 of 11 without the lottery system. The complainant having shown his willingness had paid Rs.3 lakhs to Vijaynath Pal and received possession letter of the premises from Jitendra Gadia. The further payments made in that regard to Jitendra Gadia is referred in the complaint and it is alleged that the false assurances given were not fulfilled. In that regard though cheques of Rs.10 lakhs and Rs.15 lakhs were received by the complainant from Sunita Tupe the said cheques were dishonoured and accordingly the complainant was cheated to the extent of Rs.26.50 lakhs. The case is also that in respect of the complaint the co­ accused of the respondent No.1 were arrested and on completing the investigation, the charge sheet was filed against them. However, the respondent No.1 herein was arrested on 18.12.2018. In that view the respondent No.1 herein filed the application for bail before the Sessions Court which was rejected through the order dated 04.01.2019. It is in that light the petition was filed before the High Court seeking bail. The High court having taken note of the sequence of events and also taking into consideration the nature of the offence alleged and the role SLP(Crl) No.4158/2019 Page 3 of 11 of the other co­accused, further taking note that the other accused are granted bail, has allowed the application filed by the respondent No.1, enlarging him on bail.

SLP(Crl) No.4158/2019 Page 9 of 11

10. Accordingly, we see no reason to interfere with the order dated 13.02.2019 impugned herein. The special leave petition being devoid of merits stands dismissed.