L-NLProc/TathyaNyaya-and-FactLegalLlama-NyayaScrape-Datasets huggingface dataset:
Tulshiram Sahadu Suryawanshi & Anr vs State Of Maharashtra

2) Brief facts:

Tulshiram Sahadu Suryawanshi (A-1) and Sindhubai Suryawanshi (A-2) are the parents of A-3. At the relevant time, A-3 was working as a driver.

(b) Sampat Madhavrao Suryawanshi (PW-2) is the relative of Kisan Bhanudas Sule (PW-1)-the father of the deceased and was the mediator of the said marriage. On 28.02.2003, the dead body of Ashabai was found to be floating in the well of one Sarjerao Suryawanshi with both the legs and hands tied by means of the border of a Saree. PW-2 lodged a complaint against the appellants herein with regard to the above incident with the Karjat P.S., Ahmednagar, alleging the ill-treatment meted out to the deceased in order to fulfill the demand of Rs. 50,000/- for the purchase of a Jeep.

(c) On 28.02.2003, on the basis of the said complaint, Accidental Death No. 3 of 2003 and, after investigation, Crime No. 24 of 2003 was registered at the said police station.

7) As mentioned earlier, the case of the prosecution is that A3-husband of the deceased and A-1 and A-2 – parents of A3 killed the deceased by throwing her into the well by tying her hands and legs with the border of a Saree because of the non-fulfillment of the demand of Rs.50,000/- made by the accused persons for the purchase of a Jeep as A3 was a driver. The father of the deceased was examined as PW-1. PW-2 acted as a mediator in the settlement of marriage of the deceased with A3. The doctor, who performed the post mortem on the deceased, was examined as PW-6.

SEPTEMBER 14, 2012.
Rajasthan State Road Transport Corp vs President,Rajasthan Roadways Union & ...

3. Respondent Union raised a claim on behalf of the widow of late Hari Singh for family pension under the Scheme before the State Government. The State Government referred the matter to the Labour and Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur (for short ‘Tribunal’) for adjudication of the claim. The Tribunal, after examining the Scheme, took the view that the employee was not informed of his right to exercise the option under the Scheme, consequently, allowed the application and gave a direction to the appellant- Corporation to disburse family pension to the widow of Hari Singh, who was working as a Driver in the service of the Corporation.

4. The appellant-Corporation took up the matter before the High Court of Judicature of Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench by filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2099 of 1999, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge and, later, confirmed by the Division Bench as well vide its judgment dated 29.6.2011 in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 960 of 2011. Aggrieved by the same, appellant-Corporation has come up with this appeal.

15. Accordingly, we are inclined to allow this appeal and set aside the award of the Tribunal as well as the judgments of the learned single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court. However, there will be no order as to costs.
Balaji Gunthu Dhule vs State Of Maharashtra

2). The appellant, before us is convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC” for short) and sentenced to imprisonment for life, by the Trial Court, on the allegation that he has caused the death of one Ranga Rao in a quarrel which ensued between Ranga Rao and one Smt. Shantabai (other accused who expired during the trial). The Prosecution, in support of its case, had examined several witnesses, including six eye—witnesses— P.Ws. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 10. The Trial Court, taking into consideration the evidence of P.Ws. 4, 5, 7, 8 and 10, has convicted and sentenced the appellant and two others, as mentioned earlier. Aggrieved by the said judgment and order passed by the Trial Court, the appellant and two others were before the High Court in an appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 (“the Code” for short).

9). The High Court has also relied upon the postmortem report of the Doctor. In our opinion, since the entire evidence of the eye—witnesses has not been accepted by the High Court, it could not have merely relied upon the postmortem report to convict the appellant for an offence under Section 302 of the I.P.C. Further, in our view, the postmortem report should be in corroboration with the evidence of eye—witnesses and cannot be an evidence sufficient to reach the conclusion for convicting the appellant. In view of the above, we have no other alternative but to allow this appeal and set aside the judgment and order passed by the High Court convicting the appellant for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the I.P.C.

10. In the result, the appeal is allowed with a direction that the appellant-accused be released forthwith, if he is not required in any other offence/case.

Ordered accordingly.
State Of Rajasthan & Ors vs Aanjaney Organic Herbal Pvt.Ltd

7. The respondent is a private limited company registered under the Indian Companies Act vide Registration Certificate of Incorporation dated 17.8.2005. The Company purchased 25 bighas of land in Khasra No. 840/651 situated in Village Jetasan Patwar area Jetasan Tehsil, Rajasthan, out of which 9.73 bighas belonged to the members of Scheduled Caste. That property was purchased on 26.9.2005 by a registered sale deed for a consideration of Rs.60,000/-. An application was preferred by the respondent before the Revenue Authorities for mutation of the property. The same was refused placing reliance on a circular dated 19.11.2005, which stated that mutation could be effected only if the transfer was between the members of Scheduled Caste/ Scheduled Tribe, as the case may be. Since the application for mutation was refused, the respondent herein filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 169/2006, which was allowed by a learned single Judge. Aggrieved by the same, the State preferred an appeal before the Division Bench, being D.B. Civil Writ Special Appeal (Writ) No. DR (J) 1177/2008, which was also dismissed following the judgment in IOC (supra).

15. We are, therefore, of the view that the reasoning of the High Court that the respondent being a juristic person, the sale effected by a member of Scheduled Caste to a juristic person, which does not have a caste, is not hit by Section 42 of the Act, is untenable and gives a wrong interpretation to the above mentioned provision.

16. We are also of the view that the Revenue Authorities rightly refused the mutation as per circular dated 9.11.2005. Condition No. 7(2) of the circular was rightly invoked by the Revenue Authorities in denying mutation, which condition is extracted below for easy reference:

17. The above mentioned condition makes it amply clear that the mutation on the basis of registration shall be made only in the name of that particular person/vendee who is a member of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe and not in the name of any firm/society/company/legal institution wherein a person is office-bearer or member. When we apply the above principles to the transfer of land in question, we have no hesitation to hold that the sale deed effected on 26.9.2005 was void and therefore rightly denied mutation in Revenue records. Property, therefore purchased by the respondent from the members of Scheduled Caste vide sale deed dated 26.9.2005 and other sale deeds, therefore are void since hit by Section 42(b) of the Act and it is so declared. The State can, therefore, re- possess the lands and return the lands to the original owners who are members of Scheduled Caste.

19. Consequently, the appeals are allowed and the judgments of the learned single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court are set aside. However, there will be no order as to costs.
Cbi, Hyderabad vs K. Narayana Rao

(b) After completion of the investigation, the CBI filed charge sheet along with the list of witnesses and the list of documents against all the accused persons. In the said charge sheet, Shri K. Narayana Rao, the respondent herein, who is a legal practitioner and a panel advocate for the Vijaya Bank, was also arrayed as A-6. The duty of the respondent herein as a panel advocate was to verify the documents and to give legal opinion. The allegation against him is that he gave false legal opinion in respect of 10 housing loans. It has been specifically alleged in the charge sheet that the respondent herein (A-6) and Mr. K.C. Ramdas (A-7)-the valuer have failed to point out the actual ownership of the properties and to bring out the ownership details and name of the apartments in their reports and also the falsity in the permissions for construction issued by the Municipal Authorities.

With reference to your letter dated NIL. I submit my Scrutiny Report as hereunder:-

5. Search and Investigation.

Shri BAVK Mohan Rao (applicant) can create a valid equitable mortgage with the Bank by depositing the original Regd. Sale deed executed in his by the vendors and also depositing all the documents as mentioned in the list in Item No. 2 of this opinion. I further certify that:-

The Bank is advised to obtain the encumbrance certificate for the period from 21.04.2003 till the date after obtaining a registered sale deed in favour of Shri BAVK Mohan Rao (applicant) SEARCH REPORT:

23) A lawyer does not tell his client that he shall win the case in all circumstances. Likewise a physician would not assure the patient of full recovery in every case. A surgeon cannot and does not guarantee that the result of surgery would invariably be beneficial, much less to the extent of 100% for the person operated on. The only assurance which such a professional can give or can be given by implication is that he is possessed of the requisite skill in that branch of profession which he is practising and while undertaking the performance of the task entrusted to him, he would be exercising his skill with reasonable competence. This is what the person approaching the professional can expect. Judged by this standard, a professional may be held liable for negligence on one of the two findings, viz., either he was not possessed of the requisite skill which he professed to have possessed, or, he did not exercise, with reasonable competence in the given case, the skill which he did possess.

28) In the light of the above discussion and after analysing all the materials, we are satisfied that there is no prima facie case for proceeding in respect of the charges alleged insofar as respondent herein is concerned. We agree with the conclusion of the High Court in quashing the criminal proceedings and reject the stand taken by the CBI.

29) In the light of what is stated above, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed.

SEPTEMBER 21, 2012.
Benarsi Krishna Commit.& Ors vs Karmyogi Shelters P.Ltd

5. The matter was carried to the Division Bench of the High Court by the Respondent on 5th October, 2009, by way of F.A.O. (OS) No.578 of 2009. Accepting the case of the Respondent that service of the Award had not been properly effected, the Division Bench remanded the matter to the Single Judge to decide the objections on the Award on merits, upon holding that for compliance with the provisions of Section 31(5) of the 1996 Act, a copy of the Award had to be delivered to the party itself and service on its counsel did not amount to service within the meaning of Section 31(5) of the aforesaid Act. The Special Leave Petition has been filed against the said judgment and order of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court.

18. Consequently, the Special Leave Petition must fail and is dismissed.

19. There will, however, be no order as to costs.
Pricewaterhousecoopers Pvt.Ltd vs C.I.T-Kolkata-I & Anr

12. Feeling aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal, but the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) rejected the appeal and upheld the penalty imposed on the assessee. In a further appeal, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short the Tribunal) upheld the imposition. Significantly, the Tribunal mentions that the assessee had made a mistake, which could be described as a silly mistake, but since the assessee is a high-calibre and competent organization, it was not expected to make such a mistake. Accordingly, the Tribunal reduced the penalty to 100%.

20. We are of the opinion, given the peculiar facts of this case, that the imposition of penalty on the assessee is not justified. We are satisfied that the assessee had committed an inadvertent and bona fide error and had not intended to or attempted to either conceal its income or furnish inaccurate particulars.

21. Under these circumstances, the appeal is allowed and the order passed by the Calcutta High Court is set aside. No costs.

.………………………….CJI.

(S.H. KAPADIA) …….……………………..J. (MADAN B. LOKUR) New Delhi;

September 25, 2012
Amar Singh Jatav & Anr vs State Of M.P

2. Accused Nos. 5 and 6 are police constables. They, along with two others, had arrested one Gunda @ Bhuta, as a suspect, in pursuance of the report filed by one Girdhari for an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC” for short). While investigating the said report, they had taken Gunda @ Bhuta from the Betul police station to Gajpur village for the purpose of further investigation of the said report. It is the case of the appellants that when Gunda @ Bhuta was taken for the purpose of recovery of murder weapon in the field of Girdhari, Girdhari assaulted Gunda @ Bhuta with lathi and kurfi and thereby caused nearly 13 grievous injuries. As a result of the injuries, according to the appellants, Gunda @ Bhuta died while he was being carried away in the jeep from Gajpur village to Betul police station.

6. We are informed that the appellants are on bail pursuant to the orders passed by this Court on 07.07.2008. Now, we direct that the bail bonds of the accused persons be cancelled and the accused persons be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the remaining period of the sentence awarded by the High Court.

Ordered accordingly.

SEPTEMBER 26, 2012
State Of M.P vs Surendra Kori

5. State of Madhya Pradesh had introduced a Special Rehabilitation Package (for short ‘Package’) for those persons who were displaced from their lands, submerged while implementing the Sardar Sarovar Project (for short ‘the Project’). As per the Package, for the Project affected persons/oustees, cash benefit in two installments was provided to enable them to purchase land of their choice. The amount would be deposited in bank accounts of the oustees and the first installment would be released when the oustees submits an affidavit intending to purchase land and the second and final installment would be released when both the seller and the purchaser would get their sale deed registered and submit the proof of such registration of sale deed. For availing of the benefit of that Package it was alleged, various fake sale deeds were got registered in the Registrar’s Office at Khargone. Complaints were raised about the manner in which the benefit of the Package was availed of by persons who were not affected by the Project. Narmada Bachao Andolan also filed a complaint before the Narmada Valley Development Authority regarding registration of fake sale deeds for claiming the benefit of the Package.

7. Several FIRs were registered on the complaints filed by the Rehabilitation Officer of the Project, District Khargone before the Kotwali Police Station. In the FIR No.496 dated 18.9.2007 the report of the Deputy Collector dated 11.9.2007 was specifically referred. The operative portion of the FIR reads as follows:

11. The High Court took the view that the respondent, in the capacity of the Sub-Registrar and functioning under the Registration Act, was bound to register the documents brought before him and was not expected to ascertain about the correctness and genuineness of the title of the property and also whether there was any conspiracy between the vendors and vendees in getting those sale deeds executed. Further, it was also pointed out that the enquiry reports revealed that there were only procedural irregularities in the registration of sale deeds and there was nothing to show respondent’s involvement in getting those sale deeds executed. The Court held that on the basis of the provisions of Section 34 of the Registration Act, the respondent could not be held liable on the ground that he had not verified the title of the vendor of the property alleged to have been sold. The High Court, therefore, in exercise of its powers conferred under Section 482 of the CrPC, allowed the revision petitions and set aside the FIRs and the charge-sheets filed against the respondent in all the cases and the criminal cases registered against him were quashed. Aggrieved by the same, these criminal appeals have been filed by the State.

20. We make it clear that whatever we have stated above are only prima facie observations which would not bind the trial Court while deciding the criminal cases. The criminal appeals are accordingly allowed and the judgments of the High Court are set aside.
Laxman vs State Of Maharashtra

2) Facts and circumstances giving rise to these appeals are as under:

(c) On the same day, i.e. on 19.01.1992, Devrao (original Accused No. 7) lodged a First Information Report (FIR) at the Police Station, Dharmabad alleging that he was assaulted by Nagoba (the deceased) and some other persons and as a result of which he and other persons sustained injuries. On the said report, Crime No. 6/92 was registered against Nivratti (PW-

3), Datta (PW-4) and Anjanabai (PW-5) and 3 others under Sections 147, 148, 149, 324, 337 and 504 of IPC.

(d) On the next day, i.e., on 20.01.1992, at about 9.00 a.m., Nivratti (PW-3)-the complainant lodged an FIR with the Police Station, Vazirabad, Nanded, which was registered as Crime No. D/92 for the offence punishable under Sections 309, 147, 148, 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the “IPC”) and later on it was referred to Dharmabad Police Station which registered the case as Crime No. 7/92 for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 147, 143, 149, 337 and 504 of IPC.

12) It is the claim of the appellants that though the deceased was alive for nearly about 12 hours, no attempt was made to record his dying declaration. It is true that no declaration was made and recorded. The prosecution witnesses mentioned above clearly stated that throughout the day, the Nagoba (the deceased) was unconscious. In view of the categorical statement and the position of the deceased till his death, the prosecution cannot be blamed for not recording his dying declaration.

15) Taking note of the same and the evidence of the doctor (PW-1) who conducted the post mortem, namely, the cause of death, we are satisfied that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt in respect of A-1 and A-2 (appellants herein) and A-7 who assaulted the victim and inflicted multiple injuries and shared common intention.

16) In the light of the above discussion, we fully agree with the conclusion arrived at by the trial Court and affirmed by the High Court, consequently, both the appeals are dismissed.

SEPTEMBER 27, 2012.
Munish Mubar vs State Of Haryana

2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are as under:

All the injuries were anti-mortem in nature. In the opinion of the Doctor, the cause of death was due to haemorrhage and shock caused by the cutting of major blood vessels, as a result of injuries, which were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The duration of time taken to inflict such injuries was approximately 24 hours. Dr. Renu Saroha (PW.13), explained while being cross-examined, that the injuries found on the person of the deceased could have been caused by a sharp edged weapon and were the possible result of stabbing. The possibility of use of two separate weapons could not be ruled out, however, the said injuries could also have been caused using only one weapon. Therefore, it is evident from the aforesaid evidence that, the deceased was a victim of homicidal death.

17. When the appellant and the co-accused Shivani Chopra, were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they denied any involvement in the said crime. The appellant explained that he was being falsely implicated in this case. He also stated that in connection with the same, he had been arrested 5 days prior to the alleged date of arrest from Lucknow, and had since such date, been illegally detained. The police had planted each of the alleged recoveries made by them. The jewellery recovered, actually belonged to him. He deposed that he did not know the deceased, Ashok Jain at all, and all alleged details of calls etc., were supported by way of fabricated documents. A similar version was given by the co-accused Shivani Chopra who stated that the deceased Ashok Jain, was in fact, her family friend. He had telephoned her father to inform him that he would visit their house at Rohini, on 26.12.2002 but then he failed to show up. She had absolutely no intimacy with the deceased. The alleged records of phone calls etc. were untrue stories based on fabricated records. She did not, in fact, own any of the telephone numbers, as shown as part of the evidence on record.

In view of the above, we do not find any force in this appeal. The appeal is therefore, dismissed accordingly.
Mohd.Sahabuddin & Anr vs State Of Assam

4. The appellants moved the Court of Sessions Judge, Dhubri for grant of bail and learned Sessions Judge, by order dated 30.3.2012 rejected the bail application. Thereafter, the appellants moved the High Court, who by the order impugned in this appeal having declined to grant bail; the present appeal has been filed.

14. As far as the grievance raised on the ground that the appellants were illegally detained beyond 24 hours by the police is concerned, the conclusion of the High Court having been based on the satisfaction reached by it, we do not find any scope to interfere with the same.

15. As far as the submission now made for the first time that the appellants had been in jail for more than the minimum required period is concerned, since neither the Sessions Judge nor the High Court had the opportunity to examine the said claim made by the appellants, we do not propose to deal with the same in this appeal.

17. We do not find any merit in this appeal. The appeal fails and the same is dismissed. We, however, make it clear that whatever stated in this order is only for the purpose of dealing with the appellants’ application for grant of bail and we have not stated anything on the merits of the allegations levelled against the appellants.

October 05, 2012
Tamil Nadu Wakf Board vs Syed Abdul Quader & Ors

2. The present appellant – Tamil Nadu Wakf Board – alongwith Aminjikarai Mosque and Burial Ground represented by its Secretary (hereinafter referred to as 'plaintiffs') filed a suit for a declaration that the suit property was a Wakf property and for directing S.A. Rasool, since deceased and now represented by his legal representatives, who are respondent Nos. 2, 4, 5(i) to (iii), 6, 8 and 9, referred to as the legal representatives of the original defendant, to hand over vacant possession of the suit property to the plaintiffs.

6. The legal representatives of the original defendant preferred an appeal challenging the judgment and decree of the trial court. The first appellate court, by its judgment dated February 22, 1984, dismissed the appeal and affirmed the decree passed by the trial court. As regards superstructure, the legal representatives of the original defendant were allowed to remove it.

7. The legal representatives of the original defendant preferred Second Appeal before the High Court. The High Court, after hearing the parties, by its judgment dated September 23, 1998, allowed the Second Appeal and set aside the judgment and decree of the two courts below and remanded the matter to the trial court to proceed further with the application made by the legal representatives of the original defendant under Section 9 of the 1921 Act.

9. The Review Petition was dismissed by the High Court on April 28, 1999. This is how the present Civil Appeals, by special leave, have arisen.