L-NLProc/TathyaNyaya-and-FactLegalLlama-NyayaScrape-Datasets huggingface dataset:
G.Prema vs Spl.Tahsildar,Tirupattur

2. The Reference Court by its judgment and award dated 11.9.1995 increased the compensation to Rs.4,17,600/- per acre. It relied on a sale deed Ex. A1 dated 23.12.1988 relating to sale of a plot of land measuring 2520 sq. ft. in nearby Survey No.65/3 for a sale consideration of Rs.30,870/- which works out to Rs.12.25 per sq.ft. or Rs.533,610/- per acre. The Reference Court however took the market value under Ex. A1 as Rs.12 sq.ft. or Rs.5220/- per cent and after deducting 1/4th (Rs.1044/-) thereof towards the cost of development, arrived at the market value of the acquired land at Rs.4,176/- per cent or Rs.4,17,600/- per acre.

3. Feeling aggrieved, the State filed appeals before the High Court. The High Court was of the view that it would be more appropriate to rely upon Ex. A2 dated 11.8.1986 which related to a sale of a land which was also the subject matter of the same acquisition. Under Ex.A2, one of the appellants (Prema) had sold land measuring 15 cents in Sy. No.59/3 for Rs.18,750/- which worked out to Rs.1,250 per cent or Rs.125,000/- per acre. As the sale was of 3 the year 1986 and the preliminary notification was of the year 1989, the High Court provided an increase of 10% per year, that is Rs.375/- for three years, and arrived at the market value as Rs.1,625/- per cent or Rs.162,500/- per acre. As a consequence, the High Court allowed the appeals in part and reduced the compensation from Rs.4,17,600/- to Rs.1,62,500/- per acre. The said judgment is under challenge in this case.

5. We are of the view that both the sale deeds are relevant. Ex. A1 is nearer in time and the plot though small was also near to the acquired lands. Ex. A2 relates to a part of the acquired lands nearly three years prior to the preliminary notification. We therefore propose to rely upon both the sale transactions by making appropriate adjustments.

8. In view of the above we allow these appeals in part as follows :
Kunga Nima Lepcha & Ors vs State Of Sikkim & Ors

1. The present writ petition was instituted in this Court by way of public interest litigation under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners have levelled some allegations against the incumbent Chief Minister of the State of Sikkim who was impleaded as Respondent No.2 herein. The crux of these allegations is that he has misused his public 1 office to amass assets disproportionate to his known sources of income. The petitioners have also alleged that he has misappropriated a large volume of public money at the cost of the Government of India and the Government of Sikkim. The relief sought by the petitioners is the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to investigate the allegations that have been levelled against him.

3. However, the petitioners have levelled some serious allegations of wrongdoing on part of the second respondent. In Annexure P-1 of the writ petition submitted before this Court, a list of his family members has been provided. This list refers to 21 members which includes 2 wives, 4 sons, 1 daughter, 4 brothers, 6 sisters-in-law, 1 father-in- law, and 3 brothers-in- law. It has been pointed out that in order to contest the elections to the State Legislative Assembly from the 13- Damthang Constituency in the year 2004, he had declared his 3 family's assets taken together to be Rs. 4,76,54,238/-. This declaration was made as per the requirements of the Representation of People Act, 1951. However, the petitioners have alleged that the total assets actually amount to more than Rs. 25 crores.

12. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed, however with no order as to costs.

................................CJI [K.G. BALAKRISHNAN] ...........
Vikram Vir Vohra vs Shalini Bhalla

3. The material facts of the case are that the parties to the present appeal were married as per the Hindu rites on 10.12.2000. A child, Master Shivam, was born to them on 05.08.02. In view of irreconcilable differences between the parties they had agreed for a divorce by mutual consent under Section 13-B of the Act and filed a petition to that effect and on 05.09.06 a decree of divorce on mutual consent was passed by the Additional District Judge, Delhi.

4. As regards the custody of the child there was some settlement between the parties and according to the appellant the same was incorporated in paras 7 and 9 of the petition filed under Section 13-B (2) of the Act. Those paragraphs are as under:

6. The respondent was basing her claim on the fact that she wanted to take the child with her to Australia where she was employed for gain with a request to revoke the visitation rights granted to the appellant for meeting the child. This she felt will be conducive to the paramount interest and welfare of the child. The appellant on the other hand sought permanent custody of the child under the changed circumstances alleging that it is not in the interest of the child to leave India permanently.

7. The Trial Court vide its order dated 06.04.09 took notice of the fact that in the joint petition of divorce, parties voluntarily agreed that the custody of the child shall remain with the mother and father shall have only visiting rights, in the manner indicated in the mutual divorce decree. The Court modified the terms and 4 conditions of the custody and visitation rights of the appellant about the minor child. By its order the Trial Court had allowed the respondent to take the child with her to Australia but also directed her to bring the child back to India for allowing the father visitation rights twice in a year i.e. for two terms - between 18th of December to 26th of January and then from 26th of June to 11th of July.

12. Being aggrieved with the judgment of the High Court the appellant has approached this Court and hence this appeal by way of Special Leave Petition.

26. In that view of the matter, this Court refuses to interfere with the order passed by the High Court. The appeal is dismissed with the direction that the respondent-mother, 14 before taking the child to Australia, must file an undertaking to the satisfaction of the Court of Additional District Judge-01, (West), Delhi within a period of four weeks from date. No order as to costs.
Supreme Paper Mills Ltd vs Asst.Commnr.Commercialtaxes ...

2. The appellant Company was carrying on the business of manufacturing various types of papers at its paper mill situated at Village Raninagar Chakdah, District Nadia, Kolkata. In the course of its carrying on business it filed necessary returns as required under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 (for short the "1941 Act") and also paid the taxes on the basis of the said return. The Revenue also completed the assessment proceeding which was deemed to have been made under Section 11 E (1) of the 1941 Act by operation of law. Subsequently, however, the appellant received a show cause notice from the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Corporate Division whereby the appellant was directed to show cause why deemed assessment case for the period mentioned in the said impugned notices would not be re-opened. Since the validity of the aforesaid notices has been challenged by the appellant herein, we would extract the relevant contents of one of the notices which reads as follows:-

3. The other notices which are also impugned herein have similar contents. In terms of the aforesaid notices, the appellants were directed to submit their reply to the show cause notice on 29.6.1999. 2

4. Being aggrieved by the issuance of the aforesaid notices, the appellant filed an application under Section 8 of the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal Act, 1987 challenging the validity of the aforesaid notices issued by the respondent proposing to re-open the deemed assessment for the four periods. The West Bengal Taxation Tribunal heard all the four cases analogously and by judgment dated 27.7.2001, dismissed the same.

20. The appeal has no merit and is dismissed.
Ramdas Athawale vs Union Of India & Ors

3. There is no dispute before us that the Fourteenth Session of the Thirteenth Lok Sabha commenced on 2nd December, 2003 and was adjourned sine die on 23rd December, 2003. Thereafter on 20th January, 2004, the Secretary General of the Lok Sabha, by way of a Notice informed all the Members of the Thirteenth Lok Sabha, duly stating that under Rule 15 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha, the Speaker has directed that the Lok Sabha, which was adjourned sine die on 23rd December, 2003 will resume its sittings on 29th January, 2004.

24. The very issue regarding propriety of convening of the first session of the House on 29th January, 2004 without the Presidential address was raised in the House. The Speaker gave a ruling declaring that as per the provisions of the Constitution, a session of the House comes to an end when the House is prorogued. As the House was not prorogued after its adjournment sine die on 23rd December, 2003, the session can, at best be treated as a second part of the 14th session of the 13th Lok Sabha "notwithstanding the fact that the calendar year has since changed". The session convened from 29th January, 2004 was held to be second part of the winter session. The ruling of the Speaker is reproduced hereunder:

39.We accordingly find no merit in this writ petition and is accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs.
Union Of India & Anr vs C.S. Sidhu

6. The respondent herein was an officer in the Indian Army who was given a short service commission on 22.06.1968. A short service commission is given for 5 years and can be extended by another 5 years only. He was posted at a high altitude field area and while on duty on 21.11.1970, he met with an accident and suffered severe injuries. As a result of the accident, respondent's right arm had to be amputated. He also suffered a compound fracture of the femur (thigh bone) and fracture of the mandible (jaw bone). He was released from service of Army on 23.6.1978. For his 3 disability pension, the period taken into account by the Army authorities was only from 22.6.1968 to 21.11.1970. Aggrieved by the said decision of the Army authorities, the respondent filed a writ petition before the High Court which has been allowed by the impugned judgment and order. Hence, the appellants are in appeal before us.

7. We have gone through the impugned judgment and order and we are in full agreement with the Division Bench of the High Court that for the purposes of qualifying service for disability pension the entire period of commissioned service rendered by the respondent from 22.6.1968 to 23.6.1978 has to be taken into account. Accordingly, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of the High Court. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No order as to the costs. Arrears with 8% interest per annum will be paid to the respondent within three months.

8. Before parting with this case, we regret to say that the army officers and army men in our country are being treated in a shabby manner by the government. In this case, the respondent, who was posted at a high altitude field area and met with an accident during discharge of his duties, was 4 granted a meager pension as stated in Annexure-P3 to this appeal. This is a pittance (about Rs. 1000/- per month plus D.A.). If this is the manner in which the army personnel are treated, it can only be said that it is extremely unfortunate. The army personnel are bravely defending the country even at the cost of their lives and we feel that they should be treated in a better and more humane manner by the governmental authorities, particularly, in respect of their emoluments, pension and other benefits.

MARCH 31, 2010
Goan Real Estate & Constrn.Ld.& Anr vs People'S Movement For Civic Action &Ors

1. By filing this petition under Section 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the petitioners who are original respondent Nos.6 and 7 before the High Court in PIL Writ Petition No.403 of 2007 have prayed to transfer the proceedings of PIL Writ Petition No.403 of 2007 titled as 2 People's Movement for Civic Action and Anr. Vs. Goa Coastal Management Authority & Ors. pending before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Goa, Panaji to this Court and be heard along with Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.16728 of 2008. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties. It may be mentioned that the petitioner had filed Writ Petition (Civil) No.329 of 2008 which has been disposed of by a separate judgment. On leave being granted in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.16778 of 2008, Civil Appeal No.5281 of 2008 was registered. The said appeal was disposed of by judgment dated August 28, 2008 while disposing of the appeal, the petitioners were permitted to complete the incomplete construction work done by them at their own risk and cost. PIL Writ Petition No.403 of 2007 is pending before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Goa, Panaji since long.

2. No case is made out by the petitioners to withdraw to transfer the said writ petition to this Court and decide the same along with Special Leave Petition No.16728 of 2008. 3 Therefore, the instant application is liable to be rejected. For the foregoing reasons the application fails and rejected. There shall be no order as to costs.

...........................CJI.

March 31, 2010.
Goan Real Estate & Constrn.Ld.& Anr vs People'S Movement For Civic Action ...

1. By filing this petition under Section 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the petitioners who are original respondent Nos.6 and 7 before the High Court in PIL Writ Petition No.403 of 2007 have prayed to transfer the proceedings of PIL Writ Petition No.403 of 2007 titled as 2 People's Movement for Civic Action and Anr. Vs. Goa Coastal Management Authority & Ors. pending before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Goa, Panaji to this Court and be heard along with Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.16728 of 2008. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties. It may be mentioned that the petitioner had filed Writ Petition (Civil) No.329 of 2008 which has been disposed of by a separate judgment. On leave being granted in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.16778 of 2008, Civil Appeal No.5281 of 2008 was registered. The said appeal was disposed of by judgment dated August 28, 2008 while disposing of the appeal, the petitioners were permitted to complete the incomplete construction work done by them at their own risk and cost. PIL Writ Petition No.403 of 2007 is pending before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Goa, Panaji since long.

2. No case is made out by the petitioners to withdraw to transfer the said writ petition to this Court and decide the same along with Special Leave Petition No.16728 of 2008. 3 Therefore, the instant application is liable to be rejected. For the foregoing reasons the application fails and rejected. There shall be no order as to costs.

...........................CJI.

March 31, 2010.
Sawarn Lata Etc vs State Of Haryana & Ors

3. The facts and circumstances giving rise to these petitions are that the respondent - State of Haryana issued a notification under Section 4 of Act 1894 in respect of a huge chunk of land including some land of the petitioners on 2nd May, 2001. Substance of the said notification was published in two newspapers on 5.5.2001. The respondents issued a declaration under Section 6 of Act 1894 on 30.4.2002 and the substance thereof was also published in local newspapers immediately thereafter. The Land Acquisition Collector made an award on 27.4.2004 and in pursuance thereof, the 2 respondents took possession of the land and removed the trees from the land of the petitioners.

4. Petitioners approached the High Court by filing Writ Petition Nos. 8794/2009 and 8761/2009 on 28.5.2009 praying for quashing the notification dated 2.5.2001 under Section 4 and declaration dated 30.4.2002 under Section 6 of Act 1894. The High Court dismissed both the petitions on the ground of delay observing that the award under Section 11 of Act 1894 had already been made on 27.4.2004. Being aggrieved, petitioners filed Review Petitions with 48 days' delay which have also been dismissed vide order dated 25.9.2009. These petitions have been filed with 172 days' delay. There is further delay of 37 days' in re-filing of the same.

13. In such circumstances, we do not find any fault with the impugned judgment and order. The petitions are dismissed on the ground of delay.
Commnr. Of Income Tax, Indore vs Pawan Kumar Laddha

At the hearing of the appeal filed by the assessee before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal against the order under Section 158BC of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Revenue raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the appeal on the ground that the assessee having not paid the admitted tax before filing the appeal, the appeal preferred by him should be dismissed as not maintainable. In this connection, reliance was placed by the Department in support of it's preliminary objection on Section 249(4)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [`1961 Act', for short]. The Revenue invited the attention of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [`Appellate Tribunal', for short] to letter dated 19th October, 2001, wherein it was stated that the assessee had paid a sum of Rs.22,63,600/- before filing of the appeal ...2/-

We find no merit in the above arguments. At the outset, we may reiterate that, in these civil appeals, we are concerned with the period prior to 1st October, 1998. This judgment is confined strictly to the Block Period 1986-1987 to 14th September, 1995.

We are informed by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Department that, since the question of preliminary objection raised by the Department was pending determination in this Court, the Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, has, till date, not disposed of the appeal, bearing No.IT(SS) No.13/IND/1996, preferred by the assessee before it. If that is so, we direct the Appellate Tribunal to dispose of the assessee's appeal, bearing No.IT(SS) No.13/IND/1996, as expeditiously as possible, on merits, within a period of three months from today. The period of three months shall be counted from the date when the Appellate Tribunal receives this order. We direct the Registry to immediately send the original record and proceedings to the Appellate Tribunal. We express no opinion on the merits of the case.

Accordingly, these civil appeals filed by the Department are dismissed with no order as to costs.
Anoop Sharma vs Exec.Eng.Pub.Health Division ...

3. The appellant was engaged/employed by the respondent as Mali-cum- Chowkidar with effect from 11.10.1995. He was paid monthly wages at the rate of Rs.1900/-. His service was discontinued with effect from 25.4.1998. The dispute raised by the appellant was referred by the Government of Haryana to the Labour Court under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, "the Act"). In the statement of claim filed by him, the appellant pleaded that he had worked for a period of more than two years and six months; that his service was discontinued with effect from 25.4.1998 without giving him notice or pay in lieu thereof or retrenchment compensation and without complying with mandate of Section 25-N of the Act. Another plea taken by the appellant was that no seniority list of the workers had been prepared and persons junior to him, namely, Ramesh, Amarjit, Jagbir and Rohtash were retained in service. In the written statement filed by the respondent, it was pleaded that the services of the appellant and other similarly situated employees were discontinued because the State Government had issued instructions to that effect in the wake of financial crisis. It was further pleaded that the workman was offered compensation along with the letter of termination, but he refused to accept the same and left the station and, therefore, demand draft bearing No.056997 dated 25.4.1998 for a sum of Rs.5,491/- was sent at his residence. For the sake of convenient reference, the relevant portions of the written statement, as contained in the paper book of this appeal, are extracted below:-

(b) the workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen days' average pay for every completed year of continuous service or any part thereof in excess of six months

(c) xxxx xxxx xxxx

21. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order of the Division Bench of High Court is set aside and the award passed by the Labour Court is restored. If the appellant has not already been reinstated, the respondent shall do so within one month from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order. The respondent shall also pay the back wages to the appellant within a maximum period of three months, failing which the appellant shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the effective date of reinstatement i.e., 21.3.2000. The parties to bear their own costs.
Paramjit Singh vs Harnek Singh

2. An eviction petition was filed against the appellant on 4.2.2006. Notice was issued to appellant, but was not personally served. The appellant-tenant entered appearance on 9.8.2006. On 24.8.2006, the appellant-tenant filed an application for permission to defend the eviction proceeding wherein he specifically alleged that he obtained knowledge of the proceedings only on 9.8.2006. On the basis of the said averment, the application seeking leave to defend the case was filed within the period of 15 days of date of knowledge prescribed under Section 18-A(2) read with Schedule II of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 ('Act' for short). The Rent Controller allowed the application seeking leave to contest the proceedings by his order dated 4.12.2007. The respondent filed a revision petition challenging the said order. The High Court has .....2.

allowed the said revision petition filed by the respondent holding that the date of knowledge should be deemed to be 1.7.2006 and not 9.8.2006. It is also held that the Rent Controller has no jurisdiction to extend the period of 15 days even if sufficient cause was shown. The said order is challenged in this appeal by special leave.

5. We, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the order of the High Court and restore the order of the Rent Controller granting leave to contest. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, we request the Rent Controller to dispose of the matter expeditiously.