L-NLProc/TathyaNyaya-and-FactLegalLlama-NyayaScrape-Datasets huggingface dataset:
Shabana Bano vs Imran Khan

2. Appellant Shabana Bano was married to the respondent Imran Khan according to Muslim rites at Gwalior on 26.11.2001. According to the appellant, at the time of marriage, necessary household goods to be used by the couple were given. However, despite this, the respondent-husband and his family members treated the appellant with cruelty and continued to demand more dowry.

3. After some time, the appellant became pregnant and was taken to her parents' house by the respondent. The respondent threatened the appellant that in case his demand of dowry is not met by the appellant's parents, then she would not be taken back to her matrimonial home even after delivery.

4. Appellant delivered a child in her parental home. Since even after delivery, respondent did not think it proper to discharge his responsibility by taking her back, she was constrained to file a petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, 'Cr.P.C.') against the respondent in the Court of Family Judge, Gwalior. It was averred by the appellant that respondent has been earning a sum of Rs. 12,000/- per month by doing some private work and she had no money to maintain herself and her new-born child. Thus, she claimed a sum of Rs.3000/- per month from the respondent towards maintenance.

5. On notice being issued to the respondent, he Crl.A. @ SLP(Crl.)NO.717/09 -3- denied all the contents of the petition filed by the appellant under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. except admitting his marriage with the appellant.

9. The appellant was, therefore, constrained to carry the matter further by filing Criminal Revision Crl.A. @ SLP(Crl.)NO.717/09 -5- No. 285 of 2008 before the Gwalior Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. The said Criminal Revision came to be disposed of by learned Single Judge on 26.9.2008 and the order of the Family Court has substantially been upheld and consequently, the appellant's Revision has been dismissed. It is this order and the order passed by the Family Court which are the subject-matter of challenge in this appeal by grant of special leave.

26. In the light of the findings already recorded in earlier paras, it is not necessary for us to go into the merits. The point stands well settled which we would like to reiterate.

30. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned orders are hereby set aside and quashed. It is held that even if a Muslim woman has been divorced, she would be entitled to claim maintenance from her husband under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. after the expiry of period of iddat also, as long as she does not remarry.

31. As a necessary consequence thereof, the matter is remanded to the Family Court at Gwalior for its disposal on merits at an early date, in accordance with law. The respondent shall bear the cost of litigation of the appellant. Counsel's fees Rs.5,000/-.

32. Consequently, the appeal stands allowed to the extent indicated above.

December 04, 2009.
Union Of India & Anr vs M.M. Sarkar

4. More than 22 years after his retirement, and after receiving his dues under the Provident Fund Scheme, the respondent made a representation dated 8.10.1998, requesting that he may be extended the benefit of the pension scheme. He stated that he was willing to refund the amount received under the Provident Fund Scheme (by way of adjustment against the arrears of pension that would become payable to him on acceptance of his request for switch over to the pension scheme). The said request was not accepted. The respondent therefore approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, in OA No.657 of 1999, seeking a direction to the Railway Administration to permit him to exercise an option to switch over to pension scheme. The Tribunal by order dated 11.2.2004 disposed of the application by directing the appellants to take a decision on the representation of the respondent by a reasoned order, making it clear that it did not examine the claim on merits. In compliance with the said direction of the Tribunal, the chairman, Railway Board, considered the representation and passed a reasoned order dated 15.5.2004, rejecting the belated request of the respondent for switching over to the pension scheme as being untenable. He also distinguished the cases of other employees who were allegedly extended the benefit of 4 exercising the option for belated switch overs, cited and relied upon by the respondent. The relevant portion of the order is extracted below:

14. The appeal is therefore allowed and the orders of the Tribunal and the High Court are set aside and the original application of the respondent before the tribunal is dismissed.
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. & Anr vs Dhanurdhar Champatiray

3. The relevant facts leading to the filing of these appeals as emerging from the records may be briefly stated as follows :

5. The Respondent by letters, requested the Chief Engineer (Civil) for appointment of an arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties in terms of clause 25 of the respective agreements. According to the respondent, letters were received by the Chief Engineer of the appellant no.1 on different dates. The Appellants having failed to respond to the letters of respondent requiring them 3 to appoint an arbitrator and to appoint an arbitrator in response to such letters within the stipulated period in accordance with Clause 25 of the respective Agreements, the respondent was constrained to file petitions under Section 11(6) of the Act for appointment of an Arbitrator. However, according to the case made out by the appellants, on 9th of March, 2005, Chief Engineer (Civil), BSNL had already appointed Sri. Gurbaux Singh, Principal Chief Engineer (Arbitration) BSNL vide its office letter No. 69- 41(05)/CE(c)/BBSR/205. By the impugned order, the High Court allowed application under S. 11(6) of the Act, and appointed one Sri. Bibhudhendra Mishra in place of departmental nominee Sri. Gurbaux Singh who was appointed by Chief Engineer (Civil) BSNL of appellant No.1.

13. The appeals are allowed to the extent indicate above. There will be no order as to costs.
Prem Sagar Gupta vs State Of West Bengal

2. The appellant's son was kidnapped for ransom but was got released by the appellant on the payment of Rs. 20 lakhs. A case was also registered against the accused under Section 364A/120B of the Indian Penal Code and they were arrested and interrogated and during the course of the investigation, the entire ransom money of Rs. 20 lakhs was recovered from them. The appellant thereafter moved an application under Section 451 of the Criminal Procedure Code before the Sessions Court, Calcutta, that the ransom money which undoubtedly belonged to him should be released to him. This application was dismissed by the Sessions Court. A revision petition was thereafter filed in the High CRL.A. No. of 2009 @ SLP(CRL.) No. 5332 of 2009 REPORTABLE 2 Court. The High Court allowed the revision petition on the following terms:-

5. We, accordingly, allow this appeal and direct that condition Nos. 1, 2 and 3 shall be complied with but condition Nos. 4 and 5, are held to be unreasonable CRL.A. No. of 2009 @ SLP(CRL.) No. 5332 of 2009 REPORTABLE 3 and are quashed. We direct that the the money should be released within a period of three months from today. We further direct the Investigating Officer to ensure compliance with condition Nos. 1, 2 and 3 before payment.

CRL.A. No. of 2009 @ SLP(CRL.) No. 5332 of 2009 REPORTABLE 4
Allahabad Bank & Anr vs A.India Allahabad Bank Retired ...

3. The retired employees of the appellant bank having formed an association which includes officers and subordinate staff sent a legal notice to the appellant bank on 27.11.1988 requiring it to release the amount of gratuity to its members in accordance with the provisions of the said Act. The case set up by the Association was that its members were being illegally deprived of their statutory right to receive gratuity under the provisions of the Act on the pretext that they had opted for pensionary benefits in lieu of gratuity. It appears that on behalf of the Association applications were sent to the competent authority in the prescribed proforma for payment of gratuity in response to which the appellant bank made its stand explicitly clear that it was not possible to make payment of gratuity in addition to pension. Since the whole cause of action is based on the response of the 4 appellant bank dated 10.01.1989, it would be appropriate to notice the same in its entirety.

4. The Association thereafter filed a writ petition asserting its right that its members were entitled to receive gratuity in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The contention was that the consent or option given by the members of the Association opting for pension scheme would not deprive them of their statutory right to receive gratuity under the provisions of the Act. The appellant bank resisted the writ petition filed by the Association mainly relying upon the Awards known as Shastry Award and Deasai Award and subsequent settlements under which employees were entitled either to the benefit of pension or benefit of gratuity at one's own option but not both. The Bank took a specific stand that the members of the Association had voluntarily opted for pension scheme, as a result thereof, they were not entitled to receive gratuity as well since they have already exercised their option claiming benefit of pension. The 6 submission was that at the time of their retirement all the employees were paid contributory provident fund and pension in terms of option exercised by them, under the relevant Pension Scheme of the bank and therefore, they were not entitled to payment of any gratuity. The bank further asserted that the employees opted for the pensionary benefits which, admittedly, are better in terms as found by various Awards that pensionary scheme was really more advantageous to the employees than that of the gratuity.

28. However, the judgment of ours is applicable to only such of those employees/workmen who retired from the service between 1.1.1986 and 31.10.1992.

29. In the result, the appeal preferred by the bank is dismissed with costs quantified at Rs. 25,000/- and the writ petitions are allowed without any order as to costs. 32
Bharatha Matha & Anr vs R. Vijaya Renganathan & Ors

2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the present case are that the predecessor-in-interest of the present appellants, Peria Mariammal instituted a suit, being O.S. No. 269 of 1975 against the respondents and their predecessor-in- interest claiming the share of her brother Muthu Reddiar, on the ground that he died unmarried and intestate and that Smt. Rengammal, the defendant No. 1 in the suit was a legally wedded wife of one Alagarsami Reddiar, who was still alive, therefore, her claim that she had live-in-relationship with plaintiff's brother Muthu Reddiar and had two children from him, had to be ignored. The defendants/respondents contested the suit denying the marriage between defendant No. 1 and the said Alagarsami Reddiar. The Trial Court decreed the suit vide Judgment and decree dated 7th March, 1977 recording the finding that Rengammal, defendant No.1 in the suit was wife of Alagarsami Reddiar who was alive at the 2 time of filing the suit. There had been no legal separation between them. Therefore, the question of live-in-relationship of Smt. Rengammal with Muthu Reddiar could not arise.

3. Being aggrieved, the defendants therein filed the First Appeal. The respondent No. 1 herein, Vijaya Renganathan, purchased the suit property in 1978 i.e. during the pendency of the First Appeal for a sum of about Rs. 10,000/- and got himself impleaded in the appeal as a party. The First Appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 17th September, 1986. The said purchaser, respondent No.1, alone filed the Second Appeal under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter called as `CPC') before the High Court which has been allowed. Hence, this appeal.

18. In view of the fact that the High Court did not even take note of the deposition of the plaintiff's witnesses, findings recorded by the High Court itself become perverse and thus liable to be set aside.

29. In view of the above, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The judgment and order of the High Court dated 10th July, 2001 is hereby set aside. No order as to cost.

.........................................J. (Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN) .........................................J. (SWATANTER KUMAR) New Delhi, May 17, 2010 20 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION JUDGMENT TO BE PRONOUNCED BY HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE B.S. CHAUHAN ON 25.5.2010 (TUESDAY) 21 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No. 7108 of 2003 Bharatha Matha & Anr. .......Appellants Versus R. Vijaya Renganathan & Ors. .........Respondents Dear brother A draft judgment in the above mentioned matter is being sent herewith for your kind perusal and favourable consideration.

With regards, Yours sincerely, (Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN) 19.5.2010 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SWATANTER KUMAR 22 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7108 of 2003 Bharatha Matha & Anr. .......Appellants Versus R. Vijaya Renganathan & Ors. .........Respondents ORDER DICTATED BY HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE B.S. CHAUHAN ON 17.5.2010 23 24
Punjab &Haryana High Court At ... vs Megh Raj Garg & Anr

2. Respondent No.1 joined service as Sub Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate, II Class in March, 1973. His date of birth was recorded in the service book as 27.3.1936 because that was the date mentioned in the matriculation certificate and the application made by him in response to the advertisement issued by the Punjab Public Service Commission. After ten years of joining the service, respondent No.1 submitted an application to the concerned authority of Punjab University for amendment of the date of birth recorded in the matriculation certificate by asserting that his correct date of birth was 27.3.1938 but by mistake the same was recorded as 27.3.1936. In support of this assertion, respondent No.1 relied upon the certificates issued by Government High School, Moonak and Hindu Sabha High School, Sunam. The Date of Birth Committee of the University recommended that the request made by respondent No.1 may be accepted. Thereupon, the Syndicate of the University directed that the date of birth recorded in the matriculation certificate of respondent No.1 be changed from 27.3.1936 to 27.3.1938. In compliance of the decision taken by the Syndicate, necessary changes were made in the matriculation certificate of respondent No.1.

(emphasis supplied) 13

(emphasis supplied)

16. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment is set aside. The judgments and decrees passed by the trial Court and lower appellate Court are also set aside and the suit filed by respondent No.1 is dismissed. Ordinarily, we would have saddled respondent No.1 with costs but keeping in view the fact that he has already retired from service, we have refrained from doing so.

May 20, 2010
Punjab &Haryana; High Court At ... vs Megh Raj Garg & Anr

2. Respondent No.1 joined service as Sub Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate, II Class in March, 1973. His date of birth was recorded in the service book as 27.3.1936 because that was the date mentioned in the matriculation certificate and the application made by him in response to the advertisement issued by the Punjab Public Service Commission. After ten years of joining the service, respondent No.1 submitted an application to the concerned authority of Punjab University for amendment of the date of birth recorded in the matriculation certificate by asserting that his correct date of birth was 27.3.1938 but by mistake the same was recorded as 27.3.1936. In support of this assertion, respondent No.1 relied upon the certificates issued by Government High School, Moonak and Hindu Sabha High School, Sunam. The Date of Birth Committee of the University recommended that the request made by respondent No.1 may be accepted. Thereupon, the Syndicate of the University directed that the date of birth recorded in the matriculation certificate of respondent No.1 be changed from 27.3.1936 to 27.3.1938. In compliance of the decision taken by the Syndicate, necessary changes were made in the matriculation certificate of respondent No.1.

(emphasis supplied) 13

(emphasis supplied)

16. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment is set aside. The judgments and decrees passed by the trial Court and lower appellate Court are also set aside and the suit filed by respondent No.1 is dismissed. Ordinarily, we would have saddled respondent No.1 with costs but keeping in view the fact that he has already retired from service, we have refrained from doing so.

May 20, 2010
May George vs Special Tahsildar & Ors

3. Appellant claimed that she had purchased the said land on 27.9.1961 and mutation had taken place, thus her name stood recorded in the revenue record. Appellant's grievance has been that she had never been aware of the acquisition proceedings and she was not served with notice under section 9(3) of the Act. She was never dispossessed from the said part of the land. She was granted 2 temporary licence for establishing Small Scale Industries on 24.11.1984 and a permanent certificate for the said purpose on 31.1.1986.

4. She got the information first time that a part of her land had been acquired only on receiving the notice dated 8.12.1986 issued by Respondent-Department to the effect that she was in illegal possession and occupation of the said part of the land and she was directed to demolish the structure put up by her.

5. Appellant, after collecting the required documents, approached the High Court by filing the Writ Petition No.14319/86 challenging the Award dated 16.11.1979 and other subsequent proceedings. The Ld. Single Judge dismissed the petition vide judgment and order dated 4.12.1997.

6. Being aggrieved, appellant preferred the Writ Appeal No.1692 of 1997 which has also been dismissed vide impugned Judgment. However, the Court has given liberty to the appellant to move an application for making reference under section 18 of the Act within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the order and further directed the Land Acquisition Collector to make a reference, if such 3 an application is filed within a period of four weeks thereafter, and the Court further directed the Tribunal to decide the reference within a period of three months from the date of its receipt. Hence, this appeal.

32. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the appeal fails and is, accordingly, dismissed.
U.P. State Road Transport Corp vs Suresh Chand Sharma

2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to these appeals are that the said employee while working as a Conductor on bus No.UTL- 9194 on the route Haridwar-Rishikesh was found, on checking on 24.5.1987, carrying 13 passengers without ticket from whom he has already recovered the fare and on 10.5.1988 on bus No.UGA-9059 on which he was working as a Conductor, 10 passengers were found without ticket. However, the employee had already recovered the fare from them. The Corporation served charge sheets upon the employee on 16.5.1988 and 7.7.1988 in respect of the mis-conducts dated 10.5.1988 and 24.5.1987. Employee submitted his reply to the charge sheets. However, the management not being satisfied with his reply decided to proceed with the regular enquiry and one Shri H.L. Saxena, a retired I.F.S. Officer was appointed as Enquiry Officer. The enquiry was conducted on both the charges giving full opportunity of hearing/defence to the employee. Enquiry Officer submitted the enquiry report wherein charges in respect of both the misconducts had been found proved. The Disciplinary Authority accorded its concurrence thereto. The management served the copy of the enquiry report and issued a second show cause dated 14.12.1988 to the employee to which he submitted his reply on 9.1.1999. The Disciplinary Authority was not satisfied with his reply and after considering the material on record, the Authority passed the punishment order dated 29.1.1989 dismissing the employee from service.

19. Therefore, the law on the issue can be summarized to the effect that, while deciding the case, court is under an obligation to record reasons, however, brief, the same may be as it is a requirement of principles of natural justice. Non-observance of the said principle would vitiate the judicial order. Thus, in view of the above, the judgment and order of the High Court impugned herein is liable to be set aside.

22. Thus, in view of the above, the contention raised on behalf of the employee that punishment of dismissal from service was disproportionate to the proved delinquency of the employee, is not worth acceptance.

Appeal preferred by the Corporation i.e. Civil Appeal No. 3086 of 2007 is allowed. The judgment and order of the High Court dated 7.9.2005 is hereby set aside and the Award of the Labour Court dated 28.4.1995 is restored. The appeal preferred by the employee i.e. Civil Appeal No.3088 of 2007 is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
Rajasthan Pradesh V.S. Sardarshahar ... vs U.O.I. & Ors

2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to Civil Appeal Nos.5324- 5325 of 2007 and appeal arising out of SLP(C) No.21043/2008 are that Section 32 of the Rajasthan Indian Medicine Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as `Act 1953') provided that persons who had 3 obtained degree of "Vaidya Visharad" or "Ayurved Ratna" from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Prayag were recognized as having sufficient qualification for practicing as Vaidyas in Rajasthan and they were permitted to get themselves registered as Vaidyas in the register maintained under the said Act 1953. Section 17(2) of the Act 1970 provided that persons who possessed the qualifications as laid down in Second, Third and Fourth Schedule of the Act 1970 would be permitted to practice. Section 17(3) however, carved out an exception for those Vaidyas who had been practicing prior to the commencement of the Act 1970. Different provisions of the Act 1970 were enforced throughout the country but on different dates. In Rajasthan, Section 17 came to be enforced w.e.f. 1.10.1976. One Ved Prakash Tyagi filed Writ Petition No.733 of 2000 before the High Court of Rajasthan for seeking large number of reliefs including the restrain order to those who obtained the degree/certificate of "Vaidya Visharad" or "Ayurved Ratna" from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Prayag after 1967 to practice as Vaidyas and further to delete their names from the register so maintained under the Act 1953. The High Court considered the matter elaborately and came to the following conclusions:

In view of the above, it is evident that any institution which is not recognised cannot impart an education and students thereof cannot appear in the examination held by the government, university or Board.

29. After remand, Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Allahabad/Prayag were given notices and were directed to file the counter affidavits. The Court, after hearing all the parties concerned, including Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Prayag, vide judgment and order dated 23.10.2009, dismissed the writ petition.

43. At the cost of repetition, it may be pertinent to mention here that in view of the above, we have reached to the following inescapable conclusions :-

45. In view of the above, Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 21043 of 2008 is allowed and it is held that a person who acquired the certificate, degree or diploma from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Prayag after 1967 is not eligible to indulge in any kind of a medical practice. All other Civil Appeals are dismissed. No costs.