L-NLProc/TathyaNyaya-and-FactLegalLlama-NyayaScrape-Datasets huggingface dataset:
Management, The Assistant Salt ... vs Secretary, Central Salt Mazdoor Union

5. Respondents were said to have been appointed by the holders of licences granted under the said Act. They were refused regular appointment by the Assistant Salt Commissioner, Tuticorin, whereupon an industrial dispute was raised. The appropriate Government made the following reference to the Labour Court for its adjudication :

The said finding being pure finding of fact is binding on us. The question must, therefore, be posed as to what would be the consequences therefor.

18. We would assume that the industrial tribunal had no jurisdiction to decide such a question after enactment of Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985. But such a contention had never been raised. The matter remained pending before the Labour Court for a long time. We, therefore, should not permit the appellant to raise such a contention before us for the first time.

20. We, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, would, therefore, direct :

21. The award passed by the Labour Court is set aside. Appeal is allowed subject to the aforementioned directions with costs quantified to Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only).
L. Parmeswaran vs Chief Personal Officer & Ors

6. A writ petition was filed thereagainst before the High Court which has also been dismissed by reason of the impugned judgment stating:

We do not, therefore, think that there is any legal infirmity in the said order dated 7.04.2003.

18. Faced with the situation, the learned Additional Solicitor General submitted that the question in regard to protection of pay of the appellant would be considered by an appropriate authority if a representation is filed in that behalf. Keeping in view the lapse of time, we are of the opinion that in this case we should ourselves make an endeavour to strike a balance. In our opinion, it is a fit case where this Court should exercise its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to do complete justice to the parties. We think that, while upholding the validity of the order dated 7.04.2003, interest of justice would be met if the pay of the appellant is protected in the scale of pay of Rs. 4500-7500 to be fitted in the post of Technician Grade III for which the scale of pay is Rs. 3050 - 7000. By doing so, we would not be violating any law or perpetrating any illegality.

19. This appeal is allowed to the aforementioned extent. However, in the facts and circumstances of this case, there shall be no order as to costs.
Union Of India (Uoi) vs Dattatray S/O Namdeo Mendhekar And Ors.

The first respondent, who claimed that he belonged to a Scheduled Tribe Halba, was appointed as an Assistant Professor of Psychiatry in G.B. Pant Hospital, New Delhi, in a post reserved for Schedule Tribes, vide O.M dated 21.6.1990 of the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, subject to caste status verification. He joined duty on 20.9.1990. One of the conditions subject to which he was offered appointment was that if any declaration given or information furnished by him was proved to be false, he will be liable for removal from service and other action which the government may deem appropriate. His claim that he belonged to a Scheduled Tribe was referred for verification. The Tehsildar Mohadi, on verification, sent a communication on 9.5.1991 that first respondent did not belong to Halba community. As first respondent questioned the report of the Tehsildar and asserted that he belonged to Halba tribe, his claim was referred to the Tribal Research & Training Institute, Pune for verification on 16.10.1992. On 6.3.1999, the Scrutiny Committee for verification of certificates of Schedule Tribes, informed the Ministry that the respondent did not belong to the Halba Tribe (ST). The Ministry, therefore, issued an OM dated 15.3.1999 calling upon the first respondent to show cause why his services should not be terminated for falsely claiming to belong to Halba Tribe. The first respondent challenged the decision of the Screening Committee in W.P. No. 1176/1999. The High Court by judgment dated 6.4.2005 upheld the order dated 6.3.1999 of the Scrutiny Committee invalidating the first respondent's claim that he belonged to 'Halba' tribe, and directed that the first respondent will not be entitled to any of the benefits as a member of the Scheduled Tribe, from the date of its decision. The High Court however directed that the first respondent's services shall not be disturbed on the ground that he did not belong to a Scheduled Tribe. The said benefit of continuation in service, despite invalidation of claim regarding tribe, was extended by the High Court, purporting to follow the decision of this Court in State of Maharashtra v. Milind 2001 (1) SCC 4.

We, therefore, allow this appeal and set aside the judgment of the High Court in so far as it directs the appellant to continue the first respondent in service. However, as the first respondent has submitted his resignation even before the writ petition was decided, and has not attended to duty from 13.10.2004, his terminal benefits, if any due to him, may be settled. It is however made clear that he will not be entitled to any pensionary benefit.
K. Krishna Kumar vs Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ernakulam & ...

The appellant claims to be interested in the property which was the subject matter of the proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Ernakulam. Aggrieved by an order passed by the Recovery Officer, the appellant filed an appeal, being No.2/2005, before the said tribunal, which according to the appellant is the second appeal preferred on account of the fact that the earlier appeal had not been registered. The said appeal was filed without payment of the requisite court fees, and after considering the submissions regarding the question as to whether such court fees were payable, the tribunal held that the said court 2 fees were payable and, accordingly, dismissed the appeal.

In such circumstances, we are inclined to allow the appeal and besides setting aside the order passed by the High Court, we are also inclined to restore the appeal before the Debts Recovery Tribunal.

Having regard to the above, we allow the appeal and set aside the order passed by the High Court and further direct that Appeal No.2/2005 and any other connected appeal be restored for determination on merits.

There will be no orders as to costs.

February 15, 2008.
Munjal Sales Corporation vs Commissioner Of Income Tax,Ludhiana & ...

J U D G M E N T (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 4317 OF 2007) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.1379 OF 2008 arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 4392 OF 2007, CIVIL APPEAL NO.1380 OF 2008 arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 4395 OF 2007, CIVIL APPEAL NO.1381 OF 2008 arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 4397 OF 2007, CIVIL APPEAL NO.1382 OF 2008 arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 6442 OF 2007, KAPADIA, J.

4. In August/September 1991, appellant assessee granted interest free advances to its sister concerns which were disallowed by the Department on the ground that the said advances were not given from the firm's Own Funds but from interest bearing loans taken by the assessee-firm from third parties. Accordingly, the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 36(1)(iii) was disallowed by the Department for the AY 1992-93. However, vide order dated 3.1.03, the Tribunal deleted the disallowance saying that the assessee had given such advance from its Own Funds.

8. For the AYs 1995-96 and 1996-97, Tribunal held that during the said years, no interest free advances to sister concerns were made and, therefore, there was no nexus between "interest bearing loans" taken and "interest free advances". However, the Tribunal found that there was no material to show that advances were made to sister concerns out of the firm's own income and, therefore, the assessee was not entitled to deduction under Section 40(b)(iv) of the 1961 Act.

Application of the 1961 Act to the facts of this case

19. Accordingly, the impugned judgments of the High Court are set aside and the civil appeals preferred by the assessee stand allowed with no order as to costs.
Nivrutti Pandurang Kokate & Ors vs State Of Maharashtra

2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court. Each of the appellants was convicted for offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC') for allegedly committing murder of one Baban Misal (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased') in the night between 9th July, 1998 and 10th July 1998. It was further alleged that they had buried him in his agricultural land, a short distance from his house. Ranjana Baban Misal who was the accused No. 1 and the appellant No. 1 before the High Court, had expired and therefore, the appeal was held to have abetted so far as she is concerned. Appellants 2 & 3 were claimed to be her paramours and appellant No. 4 is the son of appellant No. 1 and the deceased. He had other siblings one of which was examined as an eye witness to the incident.

3. The prosecution version in a nutshell was that deceased appellant Ranjana had extra marital affairs with appellants 2 and 3 since the deceased objected to such activities. They together with her son committed the murder of the deceased and disposed of the dead body by burying it in his own agricultural land near his house and by disposing of the blood, blood stained clothes and other articles.

7. PW 13 has deposed that her mother of the deceased appellant No. 1 washed the blood of the father with a bucket of water and cloth. She poured it outside the house. The appellants spread shawl on tiles. They put the dead body on the shawl and put gunny bag on the dead body. They lifted it by holding the shawl. They carried the body to their field. They buried it in the pit. Thereafter they returned home. Appellant Nos. 2 & 3 went to their respective houses. The appellant No. 1 locked the house where the deceased was killed and she went to the hut to sleep. She went near her brother who had continued to sleep through the incident and slept. Her evidence is as concise and precise and as it is specific and vivid. It is neither embellished nor embroidered. It is the evidence of a child who has seen through the unusual and cruel incidence. She was a girl of tender age who saw the killing of her father by her mother and others.

11. Appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Skb Dryfruits Marketing Co. Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, New ...

JUDGMENT O R D E R The appellant carries out the activities of processing dry fruits, peanut and are also carrying out activities of clearance of wheat dalia, rice flips, roasted and spiced channa and channa dal which are being cleared in different pouches bearing brand name 'Yum'Yum' and 'SKB' which are packed cartons.

Since the appellant had not disclosed the material facts of the manufacture of excisable goods in any manner to the Department with an intent to evade central excise duty, a show cause notice dated 24.4.1998 was issued to the appellant. After the reply having been filed by the appellant, the Additional Commissioner vide Order in Original No.81/98 dated 24th December 1998 confirmed the demand of central excise duty; imposed penalty besides confiscating the seized goods and ordered redemption of goods on payment of redemption fine of Rs.35,000/- in lieu of confiscation. The Addl. Commissioner also imposed a penalty of Rs.15,000/- on Sh. Sudhir Kumar, Director of the appellant-company. The appellant, being aggrieved, filed an C.A.No.4549/02 .... (Contd.)

The appellant thereafter filed an appeal before the Tribunal on the grounds, inter alia, that the activities carried on by the appellant did not amount to manufacture; that the products remained nuts and are not known by any other name in the trade parlance and, therefore, it cannot be held that they were subjected to any preparation which may bring them into the mischief of duty of excise. The Tribunal negatived the plea raised by the appellant and confirmed the order in original but reduced the amount of penalty. Being dissatisfied by the order of the Tribunal, the appellant has filed the present appeal. This Court entertained the appeal and issued notice only insofar as peanuts, pista, cashewnuts and almonds are concerned. The appeal was not entertained as regards other items. This appeal was ordered to be tagged with other connected appeals. Thus, the appeal was listed along with C.A.No.2215 of 2002 and other appeals involving similar question. However, since the counsel for the appellant was not present on the date of hearing, the present appeal was de-linked and the connected appeals were disposed of by a judgment dated 07th February 2008 in the case of Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, Goa v. Phil Corporation Ltd. reported in 2008(2) SCALE 260 = JT 2008(2) SC

No costs.
Board Of Directors, H.P.T.C.& Anr vs K.C. Rahi

Briefly stated the facts are as follows :

The principles of natural justice cannot be put in a straight jacket formula. Its application depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. To sustain a complaint of non-compliance of the principle of natural justice, one must establish that he has been prejudiced thereby for non-compliance of principle of natural justice.

In the instant case we have been taken through various documents and also from representation dated 19.10.1993 filed by the respondent himself it would clearly show that he knew that a departmental enquiry was initiated against him yet he chose not to participate in the enquiry proceedings at his own risk. In such event plea of principle of natural justice is deemed to have been waived and he is estopped from raising the question of non-compliance of principle of natural justice. In the representation submitted by him on 19.10.1993 the subject itself reads "DEPARTMENTAL ENQUIRES". It is stated at the Bar that the respondent is a law graduate, therefore, he cannot take a plea of ignorance of law. Ignorance of law is of no excuse much less by a person who is a law graduate himself. For the reasons aforesaid, the High Court fell in error in re-appreciating the facts recorded by the Tribunal. The order of the High Court is accordingly set aside. This appeal is allowed. The order of the Tribunal is restored. The writ petition filed by the respondent in the High Court stands dismissed. No costs.
Shaik Nagoor vs State Of A.P. Rep. By Its Public ...

4. In order to further its version prosecution examined 12 witnesses and marked several documents. The trial court placed reliance on the dying declaration (Exh. P4 P9) recorded by the learned 7th Additional Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and the Head Constable respectively on 12.11.1999. The High Court found that offence under Section 306 IPC as noted above was not made out. However, concurred with the learned trial judge that the offences punishable under Sections 354 and 448 IPC were clearly made out. Accordingly the impugned judgment was passed.

7. We see no reason to doubt the veracity of the dying declarations especially since there is consistency between them. We see no reason why the judicial officer should make a false statement about the dying declaration.

(vii) Merely because a dying declaration does not contain the details as to the occurrence, it is not to be rejected. (See State of Maharashtra v. Krishnamurti Laxmipati Naidu (1980 Supp. SCC 455)
Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ujjain vs Torqouise Investment & Finance Ltd

JUDGMENT O R D E R CIVIL APPEAL NO.4485 OF 2007 WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.4502/2007 CIVIL APPEAL NO.4497/2007 CIVIL APPEAL NO.4498/2007 CIVIL APPEAL NOS.4499-4501/2007 CIVIL APPEAL NO.4495/2007 CIVIL APPEAL NO.4496/2007 CIVIL APPEAL NOS.4486-87/2007 CIVIL APPEAL NOS.4488-4489/2007 CIVIL APPEAL NO.4492/2007 This Order shall dispose of the aforesaid appeals as the point involved is the same. For the sake of convenience, the facts are taken from Civil Appeal No. 4485 of 2007. Assessee-respondent, hereinafter referred to as 'the assessee' filed its return of income for the assessment year 1992-1993 declaring income of Rs.4,30,06,580/- by showing its business as investment and finance, which was processed under Section 143(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') on 18.1.1996 on the same income. Along with the return the assessee CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4485 OF 2007 -2- claimed refund amounting to Rs.29,16.660/- on the basis of credit of deemed TDS on dividend received from a Malaysian company i.e. Pan Century Edible Oils Sdn.Bhd. Malayasia.. The Assessing Officer raised a demand of Rs.1,07,370/- after rejecting the credit claimed by the assessee on the basis of deemed credit on dividend received from the aforesaid Malaysian company.

Accordingly, these appeals are dismissed. Parties shall bear their own costs.
Union Of India & Ors vs Basanti Rani Pramanik

JUDGMENT O R D E R CIVIL APPEAL NO.8205 OF 2001 This appeal filed by the Union of India has been pending since 2001. On 16.07.2001 this Court issued notice and stayed the impugned order of the High Court. On 29.11.2001 leave was granted and stay was ordered to be continued. The matter called on yesterday for hearing. As none appeared for the responent, it was passed over for the day. Today also none appears on behalf of the respondent. In view of the aforesaid reason and having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, we propose to dispose of the appeal on merits. Briefly stated facts are : The respondent's husband late Shri Harishanker Pramanik was working as U.D.C. He died in harness on 11.05.1987. On 18.08.1987 the respondent filed an application for appointment of her second son on compassionate ground on the post of U.D.C. However, the said application was withdrawn on 23.11.1987. Another application was filed for appointment of her daughter Ms. Kalyani Pramanik. It is not disputed that the first son of Late Harishanker Pramanik is employed in the State Bank of India. Shri Dipankar Pramanik, second son was employed in some organisation but living separately. The appellant by an order dated 24.08.1988 requested the respondent to submit an affidavit that her son is living separately. On 08.12.1990 the appellant also issued a reminder to the respondent but the query was never replied. However, the respondent filed a writ petition in 1991 praying the relief for compassionate appointment. The writ petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge. On appeal the Division Bench affirmed the order of the learned Single Judge. Hence this appeal by special leave.

In view thereof, both the learned Single Judge and Division Bench fell in error in directing the appellant to appoint a son of the respondent on compassionate ground. The orders of the learned Single Judge and Division Bench are accordingly set aside. This appeal is allowed. No costs. The writ petition filed by the respondent stands dismissed.
M/S. Siemens Ltd. ... Appellant vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors. ... ...

The appellant is a multi location company. It has a factory and godown at Kalwe. It pays cess for the goods supplied from the said factory in terms of the provisions of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949. It also owns a factory at Aurangabad. Its office is at Kharghar. The said factory at Aurangabad and the office at Kharghar are outside the jurisdiction of the city limits of Navi Mumbai and, thus, outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Bombay Municipal Corporation. Supplies are made to dealers directly from the appellant's factory situated at Aurangabad and office at Kharghar. However, the establishment of the appellant at Kalwe was directed to pay taxes, although according to it, no jurisdictional fact exists therefor.

The demand was made terming the same as a show cause notice. It appears that in course of routine investigation, some vendors had made certain complaints as regards the transactions of goods from the appellant's factory at Kalwa. The appellant made its representation on receipt of the said purported demand. Oral and written submissions were also made on 2.05.2005 and 10.06.2005 stating that the appellant had neither been receiving any goods within the local limits of Respondent No. 2 nor was it an importer in respect of the goods directly sold from its Aurangabad factory or from its sub-vendors' manufacturing premises and, therefore, they were not liable to pay any cess thereupon.

For the reasons aforementioned, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained which is set aside accordingly. The appeal is allowed and the matter is remitted to the High Court for its consideration afresh on its own merits. No costs.
State Of Kerala & Ors vs Unni & Anr

On obtaining samples of toddy taken from the business premises of the licensees, it was, inter alia, found that ethyl contained therein was 9.50% v/v. They were prosecuted under Section 57(a) of the Act.

qualifies only "the cost of application" or qualifies the entire preceding expression i.e. "the arrears of rent and interest at six per cent per annum on such arrears together with the cost of application". As there is ambiguity and the provision is susceptible to two meanings, the court should interpret it in the manner which will best serve the object sought to be achieved"

For the reasons aforementioned, Civil Appeals arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 3612 of 2005, 6769-75 of 2005 and 7003 of 2006 filed by the State of Kerala are dismissed and Civil Appeals arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 5130 of 2005, 14189 of 2006 and 18142 of 2006 are allowed. No costs.
Abhishek Kumar vs State Of Haryana And Ors

The appellant filed a writ petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Before the said Court, the respondents raised a contention that in the meanwhile the State of Haryana had issued a notification on 28.2.2003 known as "the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependants of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2003". Rule 9 of the same reads as under:

The High Court relaying on and on the basis of the said Rule dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant directing the respondents to make the payment of ex-gratia amount under the Rules.

For the reasons aforementioned, we are not inclined to accept the said pleas of respondent No. 4. We, therefore, allow this appeal and set aside the judgment of the High Court. The Department of Personnel, State of Haryana is directed to issue an appointment letter posting the appellant to any post within the State of Haryana as per his original seniority within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.