L-NLProc/TathyaNyaya-and-FactLegalLlama-NyayaScrape-Datasets huggingface dataset:
The Life Insurance Corporation Of India vs Sri Kalappa M. Sankad (D) Thr. Lrs. .

3. The   issue   involved   in   the   appeal   is   short.   It would   be   clear   from   the   facts   mentioned   herein below.

5. Mr. Kalappa was working with the appellant ­ Life   Insurance   Corporation   (LIC)   since   1988.   He joined   as   an   Apprentice   Development   Officer   at Gulbarga office and then at Bijapur office.

6. The appellant (LIC) terminated the services of Mr. Kalappa by order dated 10.4.2013.  Mr. Kalappa 2 felt aggrieved and filed departmental appeal against his   termination.     It   was   dismissed.     He   then   filed writ   petition   in   the   High   Court   of   Karnataka challenging   his   termination   order   on   several grounds.

8. By   impugned   order,   the   Division   Bench dismissed   the   appeal   and   upheld   the   order   of learned Single Judge, which gives rise to filing of the present appeal by way of special leave to appeal in this Court.

22. In   other   words,   after   deducting   Rs. 12,59,313.18   from   Rs.20,57,107.18,   the   balance 7 amount   be   paid   to   the   respondents   after   making proper verification and calculation, if need be.

23. We make it clear that we have not accepted the claim made by the respondents for arrears of salary, which we find was essentially based on several pay rise and notional promotion etc.   In our view, it is not legally sustainable in the facts of this case.

24.  Let the aforementioned amount be paid to the respondents by the appellant (LIC) within 3 months as   an   outer   limit   after   again   making   proper calculation under all the heads mentioned in their statement.

25. In view of the forgoing discussion, the appeal stands accordingly disposed of finally.

……..................................J.         [INDU MALHOTRA] New Delhi;

October 12, 2018.
M/S. Supertech Ltd. vs Rajni Goyal

2. The factual matrix of the present case, briefly stated, is as under:

2.4.    The Appellant – Builder issued a Pre­Possession Letter on   12.10.2015   to   the   Respondent   –   Purchaser   for completion   of   formalities,   before   possession   could   be handed over. The Pre­Possession Letter stated that upon completion   of   formalities   as   specified   in   the   Letter, possession of the flat would be offered to the Respondent –   Purchaser.   The   Respondent   –   Purchaser   was   called upon to pay Rs. 12,35,656/– towards the balance cost of the   flat,   maintenance   charges,   labour   welfare   charges, water   connection   charges,   escalation   costs,   etc.   The Respondent – Purchaser was called upon to deposit the charges on or before 11.11.2015.

2.5.     The Respondent – Purchaser failed to pay the charges demanded   as   per   the   Pre­Possession   Letter   by   the Appellant – Builder.

i) An   amount   of   Rs.   3,166/–   towards   interest   on delayed payment.

iii) Labour welfare charges subject to furnishing proof and computation with respect to the said charges in terms of this order.

iv) Escalation charges + service tax amounting to Rs.

5. In   light   of   the   aforesaid   discussion,   the   period   of compensation of Interest must be computed from 01.05.2014 till 30.04.2016 at the rate awarded by the Commission.

6. The Order of the Commission is modified only to the extent mentioned hereinabove.

7. The Appeals are disposed of accordingly.
Shrikant vs Narayan Singh (Dead) Thr. Lrs.

The First Appellate Court allowed the appeal filed by the respondent(s) holding that the appellant has not proved the landlord-tenant relationship and that the first respondent is the tenant under the appellant. Be it noted that the validity of the termination notice was, however, upheld by the First Appellate Court.

2) dated 5th August, 1976 sent by the appellant to the respondent(s) and the High Court observed that the quit notice was defective. The validity of the quit notice (Exhibit P-2) was not an issue before the High Court nor any question of law was framed on the same. In our considered view, the High Court ought to have examined the substantial questions of law framed by it and answered the same in accordance with law. In such view of the matter the impugned order is not sustainable and the matter has to be remitted back to the High Court. (7) The appeal is accordingly allowed and the impugned orders passed in Second Appeal No.303 of 1988 and M.C.C. NO.1258 of 2005 are set aside. The matter is remitted back to the High Court for considering the same afresh after affording sufficient opportunity to both the parties. We make it clear 4 that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter. No costs.
Bhagirath vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 19.08.2005 at about 10.00 p.m. the deceased-Bherulal was surrounded by the appellant- Bhagirath (armed with farsi) and other accused persons (since acquitted) viz. Mangu, Sangita Bai, Suma Bai and Ramkunwar. In the wordy quarrel between the deceased and the appellant-accused Bhagirath is said to have inflicted the farsi blow on the right side of skull near ear. When PW-6 (Ramchandra) tried to save the deceased, he also sustained injuries on his right hand. Further, Digitally signed by MADHU BALA Date: 2018.10.25 case 16:33:15 IST Reason: of the prosecution is that all other accused (since acquitted) also inflicted injuries on the deceased-Bherulal. On completion of investigation, the appellant-accused and other 2 accused were charge-sheeted for the offence under Sections 148/325/302 read with 149 IPC.

4. In the appeal before the High Court, the High Court confirmed the conviction of the appellant-accused and also sentence of imprisonment as aforesaid. So far as the other co- accused are concerned, the High Court acquitted all of them holding that the charges against them have not been established beyond reasonable doubt.

8. In the result, the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC is modified as conviction Section 304 Part-I IPC and sentence of the appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by him. The appellant is ordered to be released forthwith if his presence is not required in any other case.

9. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed.
Nehru Gram Bharati University vs State Of U.P Etc. Etc

The College was deaffiliated from the Kanpur University. The Deemed University made a request to the North Regional Committee to change the name of the institution as mentioned in the permission letter dated August 16, 2005. Such change in name was granted by the North Regional Committee and communicated to the Deemed University vide its letter dated December 02, 2008. The Deemed University is stated to have published an advertisement inviting applications for admission to two years BTC Course for the Academic Session 2008-09 and similarly 5 issued advertisement for the Academic Session 2009-10.

14) Aggrieved students filed Special Appeals before Division Bench of the High Court. As noted above, the High Court, vide its impugned judgment dated March 31, 2017, has dismissed the appeals and affirmed the judgment of the learned Single Judge and directed the Post Graduate College to refund the fees of the students and also to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- to each student. It has further directed that it is open for the concerned authority of University to take appropriate action against all those responsible for creating the situation and to recover the money lost due to payment to the students.

20) Mr. Dwivedi pleaded, in the alternative, that in the event this Court is pleased to hold that the University required to seek affiliation from State, the direction to refund the fees and pay further amount of Rs.50,000/- may be set aside since it involves a huge cost of above one crore. It was stated that the University is catering to rural masses and such a direction will cause grave hardship. Moreover, the present is not a case where the course was being run without recognition of NCTE.

Having regard to the same, the judgments cited by Mr. Dwivedi will have no application to the present case.

Under clause 'e' the Reserve Fund for an amount equalant to three months salary of the Teachers & Staff had to be created within one month from the date of issuance of the letter and maintained in the form of FDR in favour of the management/institution, for a period not less than sixty months (five years) in a Nationalized Bank.

Under clause 'f' prior permission of the competent authority for conducting the entrance exam and approval of the curriculum for the course had to be obtained.

Under clause 'g' it is specified that in case the institution starts the training programme without prior permission of the competent authority/examining body regarding the curriculum they have adopted and conducts examination for award of Diploma/certificate the recognition of such institution shall be withdrawn.

Under clause 'h' it was specified that non-compliance of the above mentioned conditions shall cause action under section 17(1) of the NCTE Act, 1993.”

36) In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is not possible to accede to the request of the Deemed University to waive the order of compensation made by the High Court. As a result, all these appeals are bereft of any merit and are accordingly dismissed. 29

OCTOBER 24, 2018.
National Insurance Special Voluntary ... vs New India Insurance Company Limited

2. The appellants are ex-employees of the respondent Insurance Companies, who initially joined as Assistants, between 1972 to 1980,and 1 went out of service taking advantage of the General Insurance Employees’ Special Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2004 (for short ‘SVRS-2004 Scheme’). The bone of contention is the plea of these appellants, that they are also entitled to certain benefits arising under the earlier scheme known as The General Insurance (Employees) Pension Scheme, 1995 (for short ‘1995 Scheme’), which inter alia provided that the qualifying service of an employee, retiring under that1995Scheme, would be increased by a period not exceeding five (5) years, subject to certain conditions.

12. The aforesaid judgment was assailed before the learned Division Bench, which, however, opined to the contrary and dismissed the original writ petition filed by the appellants vide judgment dated 17.7.2017 in WA (MD) Nos.1228-1231/2016. It is this judgment which has been assailed before us.

but, he may not call in question the very fact of making the concession as recorded in the judgment.”

An employee who voluntarily retires under this Scheme shall not have any claims against the Company for re-employment or compensation or employment of any of his or her relative on compassionate grounds in the service of the company or for any other like benefits.” 12Supra.

24. We, thus, find no reason to interfere with the impugned order, except with regards to observations made in paras 33and 34 of the impugned order, and consequently, the appeals are dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

October 26, 2018.
The Jawaharlal Nehru Technological ... vs Sangam Laxmi Bai Vidyapeet

2. Respondent no.1 – Sangam Laxmibai Vidyapeeth, is a registered society   which   has   sponsored   and   manages   Bojjam   Narasimhulu 2 Pharmacy   College   for   Women,   being   Respondent   No.2,   set   up   at Hyderabad.  On 27.7.2017, Respondent No.2 applied to the Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University (for short, “the University”) for grant of No Objection Certificate (NOC) to start the D.Pharma course in their college   during   the   academic   year   2018­2019.     On   19.8.2017,   the University declined NOC on the ground that as per the Government’s policy   and   perspective   plan,   NOC   was   not   to   be   granted   for   new institutions and new courses.

4. Challenging   the   communication   dated   19.8.2017   of   the University declining NOC and also challenging regulations 5.1, 5.2 and 6 of the Jawaharlal Nehru Affiliation Procedure and Regulations, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as “the 2017 Regulations”), the respondent filed a writ petition before the High Court.

32. Resultantly, the appeal deserves to be allowed, same is hereby allowed.  We quash the impugned judgment and order.  No costs.
Management Hindustan Machine Tools ... vs Ghanshyam Sharma

3. The appellant is a Government company engaged in manufacture of certain items.  It is now declared as a sick company.

4. The   respondent   (workman)   claimed   that he   worked   with   the   appellant   Company   as   a casual helper in its manufacturing plant from 10.06.1976   to   30.07.1977.     He   complained that   by   an   oral   order;   the   appellant   on 31.07.1977   terminated   his   services   and, therefore, since 31.07.1977 he is no longer in the employment of the appellant.

8. The   appellant   (employer­company)   felt aggrieved   and   filed   writ   petition   in   the   High Court.     By   an   order   dated   17.09.1997,   the High   Court   (Single   Judge)   allowed   the   writ petition and set aside the award of the Labour Court.

17.   The amount of compensation is fixed by this   Court   after   taking   into   account   all   facts and   circumstances   of   the   case   including   the fact of making payment to the respondent by way of monthly salary during pendency of the writ   petition/intra   court   appeal   by   the 7 appellant   under   Section   17­B   of   the   Act.     In our   view,   it   is   a   reasonable   compensation   in the facts of this case.

18. Let the amount of Rs.50,000/­ be paid to the   respondent   by   the   appellant   within   three months from the date of this order.

19. Pending   application(s),   if   any,   stand disposed of.

October 30, 2018 8
Sushila N. Rungta (D) Thr. Lrs vs The Tax Recovery Officer16(2) And Ors.

2) Against the aforesaid order, an appeal was dismissed on 08.02.1971. Exercising suo motu powers under the Defence of India Rules, a show cause notice dated 01.06.1971 was issued in which it was sought to confiscate the items of gold and enhance penalty that had been imposed. This show cause notice was challenged by the grand-father of the present petitioner in a writ petition that was ultimately dismissed by the Delhi High Court on 29.09.1972. This appeal is an appeal from the aforesaid judgment. This Court, on 09.08.1973, passed the following order:

10) This being the case, we are of the view that the show cause notice dated 01.06.1971, which is the subject matter of this appeal, no longer survives. In this view of the matter, the appeal is disposed of.

11) Leave granted.

12) The impugned order records that owing to counsel not turning up in time, the reference of questions made under the Wealth Tax Act at that point of time would remain unanswered. Given the fact that the show cause notice and proceedings thereafter have now disappeared as a result of the repeal of the Gold Control Act, we give liberty to both parties to add to or amend or delete the questions in the Wealth Tax Reference within a period of eight weeks from today. Once this is done, the writ petitions will taken up and decided on their merits. Considering these writ petitions are of 2005, we request the High Court to hear the same expeditiously.

13) We, therefore, allow the appeals and set aside the common impugned judgment of the High Court.

(NAVIN SINHA) New Delhi;

October 30, 2018.
Reena Hazarika vs The State Of Assam

3. The   deceased   resided   along   with   the   appellant   and   his minor daughter CW­1, Miss Puja Hazarika, aged about 9 years, in the tenanted premises belonging to PW­1 Manoj Kumar Deka, Digitally signed by CHETAN KUMAR PW­2   Dipen   Deka   and   PW­3   Bhrigumoni   Deka,   who   are Date: 2018.10.31 15:34:48 IST Reason: brothers.  The appellant is stated to have assaulted the deceased 1 in   the   intervening   night   of   10.05.2013/11.05.2013.   PWs.   1,   2 and 3 are stated to have heard noises and on going there, found the deceased with head injury attributed to a fall, but that the deceased was otherwise alright.  They were unable to take him to the   hospital   because   of   rains   and   the   unavailability   of   an ambulance.  According to the post­mortem report proved by PW­ 6, Dr. Ritu Raj Chaliha the deceased had the following injuries on his person :­

(iii) Chop wound of size 4 cm x 2 cm x muscle deep present on left side of forearm.

(iv) Laceration of size (5 x 4) cm present over left wrist joint on posterior aspect.

4. The Trial Court and the High Court held that the present was   a   case   of   circumstantial   evidence.     The   last   seen   theory establishes  the  presence of the appellant with the deceased at night. Her unnatural conduct because she was not crying, she was the assailant of the deceased.

On   my   crying   neighbouring   peoples   arrived there.   I tried to take my husband to medical but due to non­co­operation my Manoj Deka and others, I failed to take him to Medical.  On that   night   at   about   9.30   expired   and   Manoj Deka   and   other   neighbours   were   sitting.

18. The   entirety   of   the   discussion,   in   the   facts   and circumstances   of   the   case,   the   nature   of   evidence   available coupled with the manner of its consideration, leaves us satisfied that   the   links   in   the   chain   of   circumstances   in   a   case   of circumstantial evidence, cannot be said to have been established leading to the inescapable conclusion that the appellant was the assailant   of   the   deceased,   incompatible   with   any   possibility   of innocence of the appellant.   The possibility that the occurrence may   have   taken   place   in   some   other   manner   cannot   be completely ruled out.  The appellant is therefore held entitled to acquittal   on   the   benefit   of   doubt.     We   accordingly   order   the acquittal   and   release   of   the   appellant   from   custody   forthwith, unless wanted in any other case.

19. The appeal is allowed.
State Of Haryana vs Sunder Pal And Ors.

(2) Case of the prosecution is that Complainant-Amit Kumar son of Madan Mohan aged nine years was kidnapped on 29.05.1996 at around 01.30 pm when he went out to play. On 02.06.1996, accused-Yashpal came to Madan Mohan and demanded ransom amount of Rs.10,00,000/-. Madan Mohan, Sanjay Jain and Fakir Chand decided not to report the matter to police and arranged a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- in the denomination of Rs.500/-, Rs.100/- and Rs.50/-. First and the last note of the bundles were initialed by Madan Mohan as 'MM'. On 03.06.1996, the currency of the Digitally signed by MAHABIR SINGH Date: 2018.11.14 Rs.10,00,000/- was handed over to Yashpal and on 04.06.1996, 12:58:23 IST Reason:

When the view taken by the High Court is a plausible view and cannot be said to be suffering from any serious infirmity, we do not find any ground warranting interference with the impugned judgment.

(7) We, however, considered the matter on merits, we do not find any good ground warranting interference in the impugned judgment. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
Tamil Nadu Dr. Mgr Medical University vs Svs Educational And Social Trust

2. The Central Council for Homeopathy, the Third Respondent herein, conducted an inspection on 06.08.2013 and recommended for grant of permission to the First Respondent for starting a Homeopathic college with an intake of 50 students. The Government of India, Ministry of Ayurvedic, Yoga and Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha and Homeopathy (AYUSH), the Second Respondent herein, refused to grant the permission on the basis of its own assessment. In view of the deficiencies of the requisite facilities found in an inspection conducted later, the application of the First Respondent for admission to the first batch of students to BHMS course was rejected by the Third Respondent. However, the Second Respondent decided to grant permission to the First Respondent to start a new homeopathic medical college under Section 12 A of the Homeopathy Central Council Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). On 28.09.2015, the First Respondent was informed that it can admit 50 students for the academic year 2015-2016 subject to the condition that sufficient 2 infrastructure, hospital facilities and qualified teachers in each department as per the relevant regulations were provided before the admission of students. It was mentioned in the letter dated 28.09.2015 that the First Respondent should comply with the requirements of the Act and the relevant regulations made thereunder for obtaining permission to admit students in the academic year 2016-2017.

3. In view of the unfortunate death of three students of BNYS course in the First Respondent institute on 23.01.2016, the Government of Tamil Nadu directed relocation of BHMS students also. The First Respondent- College was closed down by the District Collector, Villupuram and students were adjusted in Government Homeopathy Medical College, Thirumangalam. Thereafter, the First Respondent filed an application for grant of provisional affiliation which was rejected by the Appellant on 08.04.2016. The reason for rejection was the failure on the part of the First Respondent in not rectifying the deficiencies notified to the College in the inspection. Writ Petition No.18510 of 2016 filed by the First Respondent 3 challenging denial of provisional affiliation was dismissed by the High Court. However, a Division Bench of the High Court directed the Appellant to reconsider the grant of affiliation after conducting another inspection in the Writ appeal filed by the First Respondent against the judgment in Writ Petition 18510 of 2016.

12. For the aforementioned reasons, the order of the High Court is set aside and the appeal is allowed.

NOVEMBER 12, 2018.
Lourembam Deben Singh vs Union Of India

2. Interlocutory applications have also been moved in these writ petitions specifically for a direction that we should recuse from hearing these writ petitions which should be placed for consideration before another Bench of this Court.

3. Submissions were made before us in the interlocutory applications for recusal but we find no merit in these applications and therefore dismiss them.

12. It is in the above background that during the continuing mandamus hearing of the petition filed by EEVFAM on 30th July, 2018 certain oral observations were made and attributed to us. We need not go into the correctness of the text or otherwise of the observations made or into the context in which they were made. The fact of the matter is that the Crl. MP No.125554/2018 IN W.P. (Crl.) No. 205/2018 etc. etc. Page 9 of 20 observations said to have been made were widely reported in the press with varying degrees of accuracy and completeness. The observations led to the filing of the present two writ petitions. The prayer made in both the writ petitions is identical. We are not, for the present, concerned with the maintainability or otherwise of the writ petitions or the grant of final relief to the petitioners herein. What we are concerned with are the applications for directions moved in both the writ petitions. The prayer made in these applications reads as follows:

17. The effective prayer of the applicants/petitioners is that in view of the observations said to have been made by this Court on 30 th July, 2018 the investigations should be monitored by another set of judges of this Court. Our recusal is sought on the ground that as a result of the observations said to have been made, the applicants/petitioners have a real apprehension that either the investigations or the trial (if any) would be tainted to their prejudice.

25. Consequently, the apprehension that the observations said to have been made by this Court on 30 th July, 2018 would influence the SIT is Crl. MP No.125554/2018 IN W.P. (Crl.) No. 205/2018 etc. etc. Page 16 of 20 erroneous.

33. We see no merit in these applications and they are accordingly dismissed. The writ petitions be listed for preliminary hearing on 26th November, 2018 at 2 PM.