L-NLProc/TathyaNyaya-and-FactLegalLlama-NyayaScrape-Datasets huggingface dataset:
Baxis Singh vs Sukhdev Singh (D) Thr Lrs .

3. The second defendant filed the written statement stating that the disputed agricultural land does not belong to the Khatedari of defendant No.1 and that the said land is in his Khatedari of which the plaintiff had full knowledge and he conspired with defendant No.1 and got the sale agreement executed from alleged General Attorney of defendant No.1 in an unlawful manner and without any right. It was further contended that the Khatedari of the land in question was recorded in his favour on 4.5.1979 on the basis of registered Will dated 15.1.1979 executed by late Buta Singh and on having proceedings of Section 145 Cr.P.C. on it, declaration of possession in respect of the disputed land was issued in favour of defendant 3 No.1 as final order. The second defendant filed a Revenue suit No. 214/95 against defendant No.1 under Section 183 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act before Sub-Divisional Officer, Hanumangarh for getting possession of the land. This suit was decided on 11.3.97 in his favour and he got possession of the land by execution of the said decree. The appeal filed by the plaintiff against the said decree was dismissed on 3.11.78. The Will executed in his favour was also challenged unsuccessfully by the plaintiff. The present suit has been filed suppressing all these material facts.

7. The appeal is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed without any order as to costs.

April 10, 2018.
K.K. Mishra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

2. By the order impugned, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh has negatived the challenge made by the appellant to the maintainability of a criminal prosecution/proceeding instituted under Section 199(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C.”) alleging commission of offences under Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) against the Hon’ble Chief 2 Minister of the State of Madhya Pradesh. The complaint has been filed by the Public Prosecutor on 24th June, 2014 before the District & Sessions Judge, Bhopal (Madhya Pradesh) after receipt of sanction from the Competent Authority of the State Government on the very same day i.e. 24th June, 2014.

3. At the very outset, we deem it necessary to put on record that during the pendency of the present proceedings the prosecution against the accused appellant has been concluded by the learned Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh by judgment and order dated 17th November, 2017 in Sessions Trial No.573 of 2014. The accused appellant has been found guilty of the commission of the offence punishable under Section 500 IPC and, accordingly, he has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two years with fine of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand). We 3 are told at the Bar that an appeal against the said order is presently pending before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh and the accused appellant is presently on bail.

48. xxxxxxxxxx

49. xxxxxxxxxx

15. On the conclusions that have been reached by us, as indicated above, the conviction of the accused appellant and the 18 sentence imposed would not have any legs to stand. The very initiation of the prosecution has been found by us to be untenable in law. Merely because the trial is over and has ended in the conviction of the appellant and the matter is presently pending before the High Court in appeal should not come in the way of our interdicting the same. The requirements of justice would demand that we carry our conclusions to its logical end by invoking our special and extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, we allow this appeal; quash the impugned prosecution/proceedings registered and numbered as Sessions Session Trial No.573 of 2014; and set aside the order dated 17th November, 2017 passed by the learned Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh in Sessions Trial No.573 of 2014 convicting the accused appellant under Section 500 IPC and 19 sentencing him as aforesaid. The appeal pending before the High Court against the order dated 17th November, 2017 passed by the learned Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh in Sessions Trial No.573 of 2014 shall also stand closed in terms of the present order. Bail bond, if any shall stand discharged accordingly.

16. The appeal is allowed in the above terms.
Union Public Service Commission vs M.Sathiya Priya And Ors.

2. Brief facts leading to this appeal are:

5(4)   The   Selection   Committee   shall   classify   the eligible   officers   as  "Outstanding", "Very   Good",    "Good" and "unfit"  as the case may be on an overall relative assessment of their service records. 5(5)   The   List   shall   be   prepared   by   including   the required   number   of   names   first   from   amongst   the officers   finally   classified   as "Outstanding" then   from amongst those similarly classified as "Very Good" and thereafter   from   amongst   those   similarly   classified as "Good" and   the   order   of   names   inter­se   within each category shall be in the order of their seniority in the State Police Service.

EXPLANATION   II:   The   adverse   thing   which came   to   the   notice   of   the   State   Government rendering   him   unsuitable   for   appointment   to the service shall be treated as having come to the notice of the State only if the details of the same have been communicated to the Central Government   and   the   Central   Government   is satisfied that the details furnished by the State Government  have a bearing  on the suitability of   the   officer   and   investigation   thereof   is essential.

A. “Outstanding”,   if   in   the   opinion   of   the Selection   Committee,   the   service   records   of   the officer   reflect   that   he   is   of   outstanding   merit possessing   exceptional   attributes   and   abilities and these characteristics are reflected in at least four of the ACRs for the last five years including the ACR for the last year (i.e. upto the preceding year   for   which   the   Select   List   is   prepared) provided he is graded at least “Good” in the ACR 17 of the remaining year.   While grading an officer as   “Outstanding”,   the   following   indicative guidelines would be observed.

23. In   view   of   the   above,   the   judgments   of   the   CAT   dated 07.04.2010, and the High Court of Judicature at Madras dated 24.06.2013, stand set aside.

24. Accordingly, the instant civil appeal is allowed.  There shall be no order as to costs.
M/S Oswal Woollen Mills Ltd. vs M/S Oswal Agro Mills Ltd.

3) Brief facts:

(a) The appellant Company-M/s Oswal Woolen Mills Ltd. and the respondent Company-M/s Oswal Agro Mills Limited are Companies incorporated under the Companies Act and are carrying on the business of manufacturing and trading of vegetable oils, soaps, chemicals, petrochemicals, woolen and related products.

(e) The appellant-Company moved an application dated 29.01.2000 before the Umpire seeking commencement of de novo proceedings. On 31.01.2000, the said application was dismissed as untenable. Learned Umpire, passed an award dated 21.02.2000, in favour of the respondent-Company to the tune of Rs. 64,65,782/- along with the interest at the rate of 18% (per cent) with effect from 01.11.1991 till the date of realization.

(f) Being aggrieved by the Award dated 21.02.2000, the appellant Company filed objections before the High Court under Sections 30 and 33 of the Act which was registered as IA No. 803 of 2001 in CS (OS) No. 795-A/2000. Learned single Judge of the High Court, vide judgment and order dated 17.04.2007, substantially rejected the objections to the Award and made a Rule of the Court with slight modifications.

(R. BANUMATHI) NEW DELHI;

APRIL 13, 2018.
Navaneethakrishnan vs The State By Inspector Of Police

9) It is the case of the prosecution that the appellants-accused planned to earn quick money by robbing a car and selling the same and for that purpose on 14.2.2008 they went to Yercaud and engaged the taxi of the John Bosco (since deceased) under the guise of sightseeing. John Bosco 6 (since deceased) also took one Madhan (since deceased) on the way. The appellants-accused asked the driver-John Bosco to drop them at Periyar Nagar, Salem at the house of the grandfather of one of the accused. After reaching there, the appellant-accused found that the grandfather was not available. The appellants-accused invited John Bosco into the house for taking liquor and they killed both of them by strangulating their necks with a rope. Accused No. 1 therein took the mobile phone and the Accused No. 3 therein took the Yashika Camera of one John Bosco. Accused No. 2 therein concealed the said van in the house of his grandfather. The number plate of van was changed with a sticker. Thereafter, they wrapped the dead bodies into separate gunny bags and threw the gunny bag containing the dead body of John Bosco into the well of PW-1 and threw away the dead body of Madhan to some other place.

10) The appellants-accused were charged and prosecuted under Sections 302 read with 34, 364, 201 read with Section 379 of the IPC. As in the given case no direct evidence of the incident is available, the prosecution heavily relied upon the 7 circumstantial evidences. To prove the case, the prosecution has examined as much as 27 witnesses and produced different relevant documents.

12) Accused No. 2-Suresh was apprehended by PW-20 at Salem Railway Station based on the information given by Accused No. 1 and on the basis of his information, the recovery of the alleged Omni Van was affected by PW-26. Further, Anbalagan (PW-11), who was a Taxi driver at Yercaud Taxi stand had deposed that the appellants-accused had spoken to John Bosco on 14.02.2008 for hiring a taxi for sightseeing. Thereafter, he noticed that the 9 appellants-accused boarded the vehicle of John Bosco and Madhan also boarded the same vehicle from a short distance. In fact, PW-11 had identified the appellants-accused in the court as the persons who had accompanied John Bosco and Madhan on 14.02.2008.

Hence, in the absence of any other material evidence against the appellants-accused, they cannot be convicted solely on the basis of evidence of last seen together with the deceased.

25) In the light of the above discussion, the judgment and order dated 23.11.2009 passed by the High Court is set aside. The appeals are allowed. The appellants who are in custody shall be set at liberty forthwith, if they are not required in any other criminal case.

(R.K. AGRAWAL) NEW DELHI;

APRIL 16, 2018.
Mohammad Yusuf And Ors. Etc. Etc. vs The State Of Haryana And Ors

(c) Being aggrieved, the appellants herein filed a Reference under Section 18 of the LA Act which was registered as LA Case No. 394/01.12.10/19.09.11 before the Land Acquisition Collector-cum-SDO(C) Nuh, Mewat. On 28.08.2012, the Reference Court, enhanced the compensation to Rs. 72,00,000 lakhs per acre and applied the development cut at the rate of 55% and a further cut of 5% on account of waiting period, totaling to 60%. Thus, the compensation was determined at Rs. 28,80,000/- per acre along with the statutory benefits.

(d) Being not satisfied, the appellants herein preferred a Regular First Appeal (RFA) being No. 6617 of 2012 alongwith other set of appeals before the High Court. Respondent-State also filed cross appeals before the High Court. Learned single Judge of the High Court, vide common judgment and order dated 03.06.2016, partly allowed the appeals of the landholders by enhancing the compensation to Rs. 64,80,000 per acre along with other benefits while dismissing the cross appeals filed by the respondent-State.

11,70,000/- by one Mahmood s/o Inshe Khan in favour of Smt. Hanisha Khatoon w/o Mohammad Iqbal of the same village. If we calculate the value of per acre in terms of the above sale deed then it stands at Rs 72 Lakhs per acre. It is pertinent to mention here that the date of this sale deed is 05.10.2005 which is proximate to the date of Notification i.e., 18.10.2005 under Section 4 of the LA Act. In the present case, after having regard to the circumstances of the case and perusal of the sale deeds of adjourning area, we are of the considered view that the compensation granted at the rate of Rs. 72 lacs per acre is as per the law and no injustice has been occurred to the appellants herein.

20) In view of above discussion, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned decision of the High Court. Accordingly, the appeals are hereby dismissed leaving parties to bear their own cost.

APRIL 16, 2018.
Dinesh Singh Thakur vs Sonal Thakur

1 Brief facts:-

(b) The appellant-husband filed a petition being H.M.A. No. 601 of 2016 under Sections 13 and 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short ‘the Act’) against the respondent-wife at the Family Court, Gurgaon which is pending adjudication before the Court. Subsequently, the respondent-wife filed a petition being Case No. 2016-008918-FD in the Circuit Court of the Sixth Judicial 2 Circuit in and for Pinellas County, Florida, USA for divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage and other reliefs. Thereafter, the appellant-husband filed Civil Suit No. 15 of 2016 before the District Judge, Family Court, Gurgaon, under Section 7 of the Act for permanent injunction and declaration inter alia to restrain the respondent-wife from pursuing the petition for divorce before the Court in USA.

(c) Learned District Judge, vide order dated 26.09.2016, granted ex parte ad interim injunction to the appellant-husband. Being aggrieved, the respondent-wife filed an application for vacation and modification of the order dated 26.09.2016. Learned District Judge, vide order dated 18.10.2016, vacated the injunction granted vide order dated 26.09.2016.

There is no dispute to the fact that both the parties are permanent citizens of U.S. Undisputedly, the Circuit Court, Florida, USA is also having the concurrent jurisdiction in the given case. The contention that the appellant-husband will suffer grave injustice if the proceedings are allowed to be continued in the Circuit Court, Florida USA doesn’t stand to the ground as the appellant himself has been residing there after 2007 and the proceedings for grant of anti-suit injunction were initiated by him in India through another person by empowering him through a power of attorney to file and pursue the disputed 11 litigation on his behalf. Further, there is nothing brought on record to show how the appellant-husband would suffer grave injustice if the injunction restraining the respondent-wife from pursuing the divorce petition in Florida, is not granted. Still further, even if the injunction is declined, it cannot be said that the ends of justice will be defeated and injustice will be perpetuated.

20) Foreign court cannot be presumed to be exercising its jurisdiction wrongly even after the appellant being able to prove 12 that the parties in the present case are continued to be governed by the law governing Hindus in India in the matter of dispute between them.

21) In view of above discussion and after having regard to the nature of case and other peculiar facts, we do not deem it appropriate to interfere with the decision rendered by the High Court. We are of the opinion that the proceedings in the Foreign Court cannot be said to be oppressive or vexatious. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.
Sisters Of St. Joseph Of Cluny vs The State Of Bengal State Of West Bengal .

2. In order to decide the present batch of appeals, for the sake of convenience, the facts from the civil appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.35786 of 2016 have been taken. The Sisters of St. Joseph of Cluny is a society registered under the West Bengal Societies Registration Act, 1961, being founded on 26.3.1973. Clause 3(b) of the Memorandum of Association of the petitioner-society states:

4. Following yet another change of heart, the society issued a letter to the Chairman, National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions (hereinafter referred to as the NCMEI), dated 27.6.2007, seeking the issuance of a status certificate of a minority educational institution for Cluny Women’s College. The NCMEI passed an ex-parte order declaring the said women’s college as a minority educational institution on 4 23.10.2007. Pursuant to this order, on 25.10.2007, the NCMEI issued a minority status certificate. On 5.9.2008, the Registrar, University of North Bengal, filed an application for cancellation of the said certificate. This was dismissed by the NCMEI on 5.11.2009.

7. A learned single Judge disposed of both the writ petitions holding that the NCMEI had no original jurisdiction to declare the minority status of Cluny Women’s College, as a result of which the order dated 23.10.2007 and the consequent certificate issued thereupon were declared as invalid. An appeal to the Division Bench met with the same result.

(g) make recommendations to the appropriate Government for the effective, implementation of programmes and schemes relating to the Minority Educational Institutions; and

(2) An appeal under sub-section (I) shall be filed within thirty days from the date of the order referred to in sub-section (I) communicated to the applicant:

(2) An appeal under sub-section (1) shall be preferred within thirty days from the date of the 17 order communicated to the applicant: Provided that the Commission may entertain an appeal after the expiry of the said period of thirty days, if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing it within that period.

(3) An appeal to the Commission shall be made in such form as may be prescribed and shall be accompanied by a copy of the order against which the appeal has been filed.

xxx xxx xxx

This being the case, we are not inclined to send the matter back to the NCMEI for a de novo hearing on merits at the behest of Shri Dhavan’s client.

23. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed and the judgment of the Calcutta High Court is set aside. The order dated 23.10.2007 and the certificate dated 25.10.2007 are declared to be valid in law.

24. In view of the above, the present batch of appeals is disposed of in accordance with this judgment.

April 18, 2018.
M. Durga Singh vs Yadagiri .

4. The appellants later filed OS No.1167 of 1975 for removal of encroachment by the respondents on 79.49 square yards of land. This suit was compromised between the parties and disposed of on 18 th October, 1979. As a result of the compromise, the respondents paid an amount of Rs.5887.50 to the appellants, who gave up all their claims to the land in dispute.

11. Thereafter, the appellants preferred a writ petition in the Andhra Pradesh High Court being Writ Petition No.21808 of 1994. This writ petition came to be dismissed by the impugned judgment and order dated 12th December, 2002.

20. In view of the above, we have no hesitation in concluding that the Special Court was fully justified in dismissing the land grabbing case filed by the appellants and the High Court was also justified in dismissing the writ petition filed by them. We find absolutely no reason to interfere with the views expressed and accordingly we dismiss the appeal with costs of Rs. 50,000/- on the appellants for taking several courts for a ride through continuous and fruitless litigation spanning several decades.

............................................J (Madan B. Lokur) New Delhi ; ...........................................J April 18, 2018 (Deepak Gupta) C.A. No. 5645 of 2006 Page 9 of 9
Suresh Kumar Kohli vs Rakesh Jain

3) Brief facts:-

(a) Suresh Kumar Kohli-the appellant herein is the owner of shop bearing No. 3, Building No. 2656, Ajmal Khan Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi (in short ‘the suit premises’). On 15.11.1975, his father, along with one another, let out the suit premises on a monthly rental of Rs. 450/- to Late Shri Ishwar Chand Jain, father of Respondent No. 1 herein, and Ramesh Chand Jain-Respondent No. 2 herein. The tenants started a family business under the name and style of M/s Rakesh Wool Store. Shri Rakesh Jain - Respondent No. 1 herein was inducted as a partner in the family business on 02.04.1979.

(b) On 25.04.2009, the owner sent a legal notice to Respondent No. 2 herein and his father Late Shri Ishwar Chand Jain terminating the tenancy with effect from 31.05.2009. Shri Ishwar Chand Jain died on 08.03.2010.

(d) Being aggrieved by the decree in favour of the appellant herein, Respondent No. 2 herein preferred Rent Control Revision being No. 212 of 2012 before the High Court.

Surayya Begum is however given on month’s time to vacate the premises. No costs.”

There appears to be an apparent conflict between the two judgments. It was on that account that the present appeal was referred to a Bench of three Judges. According to us, it is difficult to hold that after the death of the original tenant his heirs become tenants-in-common and each one of the heirs shall be deemed to be an independent tenant in his own right. This can be examined with reference to Section 20(2) which contains the grounds on which a tenant can be evicted. Clause

Conclusion:-

The appeal is allowed.

(ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE) NEW DELHI;

APRIL 19, 2018.
Mahaveer Kumar Jain vs Commnr. Of Income Tax

2) Before proceeding further, it is pertinent to set out the facts in a summarized way to appreciate properly the issue involved in this instant appeal:-

b) The appellant herein filed Income Tax Return for the Assessment Year (AY) 1986-87 disclosing the income from lottery at Rs. 20 lakhs and deducting the agent/seller commission of Rs. 2 lakhs out of the same. He claimed deduction under Sec. 80 TT of the IT Act on Rs 20,00,000/- i.e the gross amount of the prize money won in the lottery in accordance with the provisions of the charging Section.

c) On scrutiny, the Assessing Officer (AO), vide order dated 08.01.1988, allowed the deduction under Section 80TT of the IT Act on Rs. 18 lakhs instead of Rs. 20 lakhs while holding 2 that the Government of Sikkim, had deducted the tax at source from the lottery amount of Rs. 18 lakhs as Rs. 2 lakhs have been paid to the agent directly. In other words, under the relevant provisions of Section 80TT of the IT Act, the deduction can be claimed only on net income out of lottery and not on the gross income. The said order was further confirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, (Appeals), Rajasthan-II, Jaipur, vide order dated 31.10.1988

APRIL 19, 2018.
M/S Standard Essential Oil Industries vs The Forest Range Officer Kasargod

Brief facts :-

The seizure of the oil was reported to the Superintendent, Central Excise, Kasargod apprehending violation of the Central Excise Rules in removing the oil from the factory to the residential premises.

(f) The appellants being dissatisfied with the order dated 03.07.1998 filed a writ petition before the High Court bearing OP. No. 15114 of 1998 which came to be dismissed vide order dated 19.05.2004.

(g) The appellants, being aggrieved by the order dated 19.05.2004, preferred an appeal to the Division Bench of the High Court being No. 1458 of 2004. The Division Bench, vide order dated 01.03.2005 upheld the order of confiscation and dismissed the appeal.

APRIL 19, 2018.
Subhash Chandra Sen(D) Thr.Lrs And Ors vs Nabin Sain(D)Thr.Lrs.

The High Court by its order dated 05.02.2008 has allowed the revision and set aside the order dated 06.09.2006 of the trial court. During the pendency of these proceedings, both the plaintiff and the 1st defendant died and their LRs have been brought on record at different stages. The LRs of the 1 st defendant and other defendants have filed this appeal challenging the order of the High Court.

And for this, your petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray.

Dated: 06.02.2001 Sd/-

Plaintiff”

7. Hence, this appeal is allowed. The order of the High Court impugned herein is set aside and the order of the trial court dated 06.09.2006 is restored. There will be no order as to costs.