L-NLProc/TathyaNyaya-and-FactLegalLlama-NyayaScrape-Datasets huggingface dataset:
National Insurance Co.Ltd vs Om Prakash Jain

Respondent Om Prakash Jain filed a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bundi, Rajasthan, [for short, "the District Forum"] claiming compensation in lieu of the damage caused to the vehicle (truck bearing registration No. RJ08/G-0023), which was purchased in the name of firm, namely, M/s. Jain Oil Industries. According to him, the truck met with an accident on 20th September, 1995 when he was going from Dei to Jaipur with wheat loaded in the truck. The complainant pleaded that driver of the truck Shri Taufiq Ahmad had valid driving licence. The appellant contested the complaint by alleging that the wheat did not belong to the complainant; that the truck was being used as public carrier for transporting the passengers and that the driver did not have valid and effective driving licence.

On the issue of driving licence, the District Forum noted that the original licence of Shri Taufiq Ahmad was issued in Assam on 22.1.1997 and was renewed by District Transport Officer, Bundi for the period from 21.12.1992 to 19.1.1996. The District Forum further noted that as per the report of District Transport Officer, Guwahati, the driving licence possessed by Shri Taufiq Ahmad was not issued by his office and held that the original licence of the driver was fake. The District Forum then referred to the evidence produced by the parties and concluded that the insured was guilty of violating the conditions of policy, inasmuch as, it had transported goods belonging to others and allowed the use of vehicle for transportation of passengers. On that premise, the District Forum dismissed the complaint. The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short, "the State Commission") before which the respondent filed appeal, made the following observations on the issue of validity of driving licence of Shri Taufiq Ahmad:

Accordingly, the State Commission allowed the appeal and directed the Insurance Company (appellant herein) to pay compensation of Rs.61,255/- with interest at the rate of nine per cent from the date of filing the complaint. The National Commission dismissed the appellant's revision by a rather short order and held that the State Commission was right in observing that the insured was not in a position to verify whether the original licence issued in 1987 was fake.

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, impugned orders passed by the State Commission as well as the National Commission are set aside and the order passed by the District Forum is restored.

No costs.
Fgp Ltd vs Saleh Hooseini Doctor & Anr

2. The order of the High Court in its revisional jurisdiction is impugned before this Court by the appellant herein, a tenant in respect of the premises being No.D1, Unit Type 401 on the 4th Floor of the 1 Building known as "Daisylea" situated at 17A, Mount Pleasant Road, Mumbai-400006 (hereinafter "the suit premises").

5. On 12.08.2005 the said suit was allowed by the Small Causes Court of Bombay, inter alia, holding that the suit is maintainable as the plaintiffs represent the estate of the original owner. The trial Court directed appellant to handover vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises and ordered an enquiry with respect of mesne profit. Against the said judgment and order, the appellant filed an appeal which was dismissed on 30.08.2008 by the Court of Small Causes Bombay being Appeal No.731 of 2005.

11. However, before this Court it was submitted on behalf of the appellant that three agreements were executed between the appellant and the owner of the flat in July 1981. The first one was entered into on 14.7.1981 whereby the erstwhile owner of the flat agreed to sell the same to the appellant for a sum of Rs.5 lacs and the said agreement also acknowledged that the entire sale consideration of Rs.5 lacs have been received by the erstwhile owner and in the said agreement it was stipulated that the appellant would be entitled to occupy the suit premises as tenants of the vendor till the suit for specific performance was decreed. It was also urged that in pursuance of the said agreement dated 14.7.1981 the original owner executed 8 another agreement dated 16.07.1981 and thereby let out the suit premises to the appellant as a tenant. Another agreement dated 20.7.1981 was also executed on the stamp paper between the original owner and the appellant-company, whereby the original owner again agreed to sell the appellant- company the suit premises for the same price of Rs.5 lacs which the original owner received on 14.07.1981.

50. Therefore, the Suit is maintainable. 33

On a parity of reasoning we are of the opinion that as we are not satisfied that the justice of the case requires interference in the circumstances, we should refuse to interfere with the order of the High Court dismissing the writ petition of the appellant."

64. For the reasons stated above, we do not find any merit in this appeal which is dismissed accordingly. However, we are restraining ourselves for passing any order as to costs in view of the excellent 42 assistance rendered to this Court by the learned counsel for the appellant. Therefore, there is no order as to costs.
N.Eswari vs K.Swarajya Lakshmi

11. On a bare perusal of these findings of the High Court, it appears that PW1 has categorically admitted that he had got two houses of his own at Hyderabad and at present, the landlady/respondent is staying with her children at 5 Hyderabad but since she has no residential house at Vijayawada and her age is about 70 years, she wants to settle herself in Vijayawada in the disputed premises. According to the High Court, the landlady/respondent was the best judge for her residential requirement and she can choose any place where she can settle down for various reasons. In view of the above, the High Court had set aside the concurrent orders of the Courts below and granted eviction of the appellant.

16. For the reasons aforesaid, the impugned order is set aside and that of Rent Controller, Vijayawada and the Appellate Authority are restored.

17. The application for eviction filed by the respondent stands rejected. The appeal is thus allowed. There will be no order as to costs.
Sayanna vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors

3. The facts emerging from the record of the case are as under: -

4. Mr. Anup, son of the appellant, had completed his primary and secondary education from Milind Primary School, Kundalwadi and in school records, his caste was recorded as Mannerwarlu. The son of the appellant had also applied to Tehsildar to issue certificate to him mentioning that he belongs to "Mannerwarlu" caste. The Tehsildar, Biloli had issued certificate dated October 5, 1989 mentioning that Anup was belonging to Mannerwarlu caste. Pursuant to an advertisement issued by the Maharashtra Public Service Commission, Anup had applied for one of the posts notified and claimed benefit as a candidate belonging to Scheduled Tribes, by producing above mentioned certificate. The said certificate was forwarded to the Vigilence Cell, Office of the Deputy Director, Scheduled Tribes Scrutiny Committee, Aurugabad for verification. The officer of the said committee had recorded statements of the appellant and his father and after making due enquiry, reported on May 17, 2001 to the Deputy 4 Director, Scheduled Tribes Scrutiny Committee, that Anup, son of the appellant, belongs to Mannerwarlu caste. After considering the documents and associated facts, the Committee for Scrutiny and verification of Tribe Claims, Aurangabad had issued certificate of validity dated October 10, 2001 stating that Anup belongs to the Mannerwarlu Scheduled Tribe by birth.

6. The Scrutiny Committee by order dated August 19, 2005 cancelled and confiscated certificate dated May 17, 1972, issued to the appellant indicating that he belongs to "Mannerwarlu" Scheduled Tribe. 6 Feeling aggrieved, the appellant invoked extraordinary jurisdiction of High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad under Article 226 of the Constitution by filing writ petition No. 6583 of 2005. The Division Bench of the High Court has dismissed the petition, giving rise to the instant appeal.

11. For the reasons stated in the judgment the appeal succeeds. The decision dated August 19, 2005, taken by the Scheduled Tribes Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad, to cancel and confiscate the caste certificate dated May 17, 1972, issued to the appellant by the Tehsildar, Biloli, Distt. Nanded, stating that the appellant belongs to Mannerwarlu Scheduled Tribe, as confirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Aurangabad Bench in Writ Petition No. 6583 of 2005, decided on December 5, 2006, is set aside. The appeal accordingly stands allowed.

12. As the appeal is allowed, I.A. No. 3 of 2008 to recall order dated July 9, 2008, refusing to grant time to the appellant to file rejoinder affidavit and to allow the appellant to file the rejoinder does not survive and it is accordingly disposed of.

13. There shall be no order as to costs.

September 15, 2009.
Union Of India & Ors vs A.K. Pandey

2. Mr. A.K. Pandey - respondent - was enrolled in Army on September 18, 1987. Subsequently, he was posted to 12 Corps Signal Regiment (AREN) unit on August 21, 1994 at Jodhpur. The respondent remained on casual leave for thirteen days from September 5, 1995 to September 17, 1995. When he resumed his duty on September 23, 1995 he brought with him one country made pistol and one round of small ammunition to the unit which he sold to signalman J.N. Narasimlu of the same unit. J.N. Narasimlu while leaving the unit was caught by the regimental police carrying the above weapon and one round of small ammunition in one bag. On being questioned, J.N. Narasimlu told that he had purchased the weapon and one round of small ammunition from the respondent. The respondent and J.N. Narasimlu were placed in closed arrest with effect from September 23, 1995. Summary of evidence against both the persons is said to have been recorded by Major Sudhir Handa of 12 Corps Signal Regiment.

3. The respondent was charged vide charge-sheet dated October 26, 1995 which was served upon him on November 2, 1995 at 1800 hours. He was informed that he would be tried by General Court Martial on November 6, 1995 at 1130 hrs.

4. On November 6, 1995, General Court Martial commenced its proceedings at 1010 hours wherein the respondent is said to have pleaded guilty of both the charges. Based on that, the respondent was awarded punishments; (i) to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and (ii) dismissal from service. 2

5. The respondent aggrieved thereby submitted a petition under Section 164(2) of the Army Act, 1950 before the Chief of the Army staff for setting aside the findings and sentence of the General Court Martial held on November 6, 1995.

6. The Chief of Army Staff rejected the petition submitted by the respondent on December 23, 1996 and the respondent was informed of the said decision on December 31, 1996.

7. The respondent then approached the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur praying therein for issuance of appropriate writ, order or direction to quash the General Court Martial proceedings dated November 6, 1995 and the punishments awarded to him and to reinstate him in service with effect from November 6, 1995 with all consequential benefits.

8. The present appellants contested the writ petition by filing a counter in opposition before the High Court.

10. The present appellants preferred intra court appeal which was found devoid of any merit and came to be dismissed on April 11, 2001. Hence, the present appeal by special leave.

26. In the result, the appeal must fail and is dismissed with no order as to costs.

........................J (B.N. Agrawal) ........................J (Aftab Alam) ........................J (R. M. Lodha) New Delhi September 16 , 2009 1
Gajara Vishnu Gosavi vs Prakash Nanasaheb Kamble & Ors

2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that appellant filed Civil Suit No.6/87 seeking declaration that she was owner of the western half part of the suit property, i.e. city Survey no.83 and in actual physical possession thereof, and further for restraining the defendants/respondents to cause any obstruction to her possession over the said property and also for possession of the other part of the property.

4. Defendant/respondent nos.1 and 2 contested the suit on various grounds, inter alia, that Housabai was a necessary party. As she had not been impleaded as defendant/respondent, the suit could not be entertained for want of necessary party. The property had never been partitioned. The sale deed executed by Housabai could not be valid and the same was liable to be dismissed.

13. In view of the above, we do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned judgment. Appeals are accordingly dismissed.

September 16, 2009.
K.V. Mohd. Zakir vs Regional Sports Centre

4. Claims and counter claims were raised before the arbitrator. After examining the rival contentions, the arbitrator gave an award dated 16/03/1990 for an amount of Rs.19,51,334.25 with interest at the rate of 10% on Rs.18,86,700.23, the principal amount, from the date of award to the date of decree. The claimant then applied for making the award into 'rule of the Court' and vide order dated 1/1/1991, the III Additional Sub-Judge, Ernakulam passed an order making the award 'rule of the Court'.

loss of profit of 15% of the cost of work. Learned Judges held that it is difficult to accept the reasoning of the arbitrator in granting the aforesaid part of the award of the arbitrator and, therefore, the learned Judges were pleased to set aside the award with regard to claim No.II. With the rest of the award, learned Judges, however, did not interfere.

7. We, therefore, see no reason to interfere with the award of the arbitrator. We, accordingly, set aside the judgment of the High Court and uphold the award of the arbitrator. Appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs.
Surinder Singh And Ors vs State Of Punjab

The prosecution story is as under:-

Criminal Appeal No. 186 of 2005 is dismissed in toto whereas Criminal Appeal No. 1444 of 2004 is allowed qua Raju and Ram Singh appellant Nos. 2 and 3 and dismissed qua appellant No. 1 Deep Singh.

In view of the above, Raju and Ram Singh, 8 CRL.A. NO. 1444 OF 2004 appellant Nos. 2 and 3 shall be released forthwith if not required in connection with any other case.

..................J [HARJIT SINGH BEDI] ..................J [J.M. PANCHAL] NEW DELHI SEPTEMBER 16, 2009.
Deep Singh & Ors vs State Of U.P

The prosecution story is as under:-

Criminal Appeal No. 186 of 2005 is dismissed in toto whereas Criminal Appeal No. 1444 of 2004 is allowed qua Raju and Ram Singh appellant Nos. 2 and 3 and dismissed qua appellant No. 1 Deep Singh.

In view of the above, Raju and Ram Singh, 8 CRL.A. NO. 1444 OF 2004 appellant Nos. 2 and 3 shall be released forthwith if not required in connection with any other case.

..................J [HARJIT SINGH BEDI] ..................J [J.M. PANCHAL] NEW DELHI SEPTEMBER 16, 2009.
Yash Ahuja & Ors vs Medical Council Of India & Ors

3. In order to appreciate the controversy raised before this Court, it would be advantageous to notice certain facts, which are as under:-

7. The Ministry of Health, Government of India, by letter dated January 11-16, 2007, asked the MCI to 8 conduct an inspection of Universal College of Medical Sciences, Bhairahwa, Nepal and other institutions in Nepal recognised for granting MBBS degree under the Act to re-assess the facilities available there as doctors coming out of those colleges were eligible to practice medicine in India. Accordingly the inspection team of MCI went to Pokhara to inspect the college on January 19-20, 2007 to re-assess the infrastructural, teaching and other facilities available at the said college for grant of qualifications recognized and included in the Second Schedule to the Act.

8. The appellants who were the students of the Manipal College of Medical Sciences, Pokhara and had obtained MBBS qualification from Kathmandu University were issued provisional registration certificates by MCI and had started their internship from the Medical Colleges recognized by the MCI. However, on completion of internship, they were denied permanent registration on the ground that they had not cleared the prescribed screening test.

33.For the reasons stated in the judgment, this Court does not find any substance in the appeals and the petition. Therefore, they are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

34.In view of the dismissal of the appeals, pending applications also stand dismissed.

September 17, 2009
M/S Super Cassettes Industries Limited vs State Of U.P.& Anr

3. On January 24, 2002, the Additional Collector (Finance/Revenue) (for short, `Prescribed Authority'), Gautambudh Nagar issued a notice under Section 9(2) of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (for short, `Act, 1960') calling upon the appellants to file details of the land held by them in Ceiling Land Holding Form No. 2 (for short, `CLH Form-2') along with enclosures within a period of thirty days from the date of notice.

16. Section 5 imposes ceiling on land holdings from the appointed date and further mandates that no tenure-holder shall be entitled to hold in the aggregate any land in excess of ceiling area applicable to him throughout Uttar Pradesh. 7

27. Pertinently, by a notice issued to the appellants on January 24, 2002 under Section 9(2) of the Act, 1960 that they 15 were called upon to submit the details of the land in excess of the ceiling limits. In response thereto, the appellants filed objections bringing to the notice of the Prescribed Authority that the land purchased by them was already recorded as `abadi/industrial' land under the provisions of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (for short `Act, 1950'). The appellants, thus, submitted that the land held by them was not covered by the Act, 1960. They submitted a statement in C.L.H. Form-2 stating under each column, `not applicable'. The Prescribed Authority accepted the objections of the appellants and cancelled the notice issued to them under Section 9(2). In the circumstances, the order dated December 17, 2003 cannot be said to be an order under Section 11(1). The question is : is that order an order under Section 12 read with Section 11(2)? Or, in other words, whether the objections filed by the appellants on February 21, 2002 and the subsequent statement in the form of chart pursuant to the order dated May 23, 2002 are objections under Section 10(2) of the Act, 1960?

(2) (a) Where the statement submitted under sub- section (1) is accepted by the Prescribed Authority, it shall proceed to determine the surplus land accordingly.

33. For the foregoing reasons, these appeals must succeed and are allowed. The impugned judgment of the High Court as well as that of the Additional Commissioner are set aside. It is, however, clarified that it will be open to the Respondent No. 1 to assail the legality and correctness of the order passed by the Prescribed Authority in appropriate proceedings as may be advised and in that event the period from the date of the filing appeals by the Respondent No. 1 before the Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut until date shall not come in their way in pursuing such remedy. Parties will bear their own costs.

........................J (Tarun Chatterjee) ........................J (R. M. Lodha) New Delhi September 17, 2009.
Rishab Chand Bhandari(D)By Lrs. & Anr vs National Engineering Industry Ltd

4. The facts in brief are that the suit premises admittedly belonged to Sitaram Bhandar Trust (hereinafter for short 'the Trust') and the Trust is the owner of the suit premises. The respondent, claiming that it was authorized by the Trust to do so, alleged that it had let out the premises in dispute to appellant No.2 (defendant No. 1 in the suit) and was collecting rent from it. However, thereafter, the defendant No. 1 started paying rent to one Ram Das Modani who claimed to be an employee of the Trust. The respondent then filed a suit for eviction and arrears of rent against the appellants alleging that the appellants had committed default in payment of rent.

14. Appeal allowed. No order as to the costs.

SEPTMBER 17, 2009
Employees State Insurance Corporation vs M/S. Bhakra Beas Mgmt. Board & Anr

The facts in detail have been given in the impugned judgment and hence we need not repeat the same herein. 2

It appears that the appellant had issued a notice under Section 45-A of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter for short 'the Act') for making employer's contribution towards the employees state insurance. The respondent No.1 Board challenged that notice before the Employees State Insurance Court, Delhi. It appears that neither the workers concerned of the respondent No. 1 Board nor any one of them in representative capacity were made parties in the petition under Section 75 of the Act before the Employees State Insurance Court or before the High Court.

The Employees State Insurance Court decided in favour of the appellant and against the respondent No. 1 Board and directed the respondent No. 1 to pay its contribution towards the employees insurance. Against the said order of the Employees State Insurance Court, the respondent No. 1-Board filed an appeal under Section 82 of the Act before the High Court and the High Court has allowed the said appeal holding that the sub-stations of the respondent No. 1 Board are not factories within the meaning of the Act. Hence this appeal by special leave.

Neither the workers of the respondent No. 1 nor any one of them in representative capacity were impleaded either 6 before the Employees State Insurance Court or before the High Court. In our opinion, this is in violation of the principles of natural justice. Hence, we allow this appeal, set aside the impugned judgment and order of the High Court as well as that of the Employees State Insurance Court and remand the matter to the Employees State Insurance Court for deciding the same after impleading the workers of the respondent No. 1 Board or their union in a representative capacity. Since, the case pertains to the year 1987, we request the Employees State Insurance Court to decide the same expeditiously.

Appeal allowed. No order as to the costs. Civil Appeal No. 8336/2004 For the reasons stated in order passed in Civil Appeal No. 8335/2004, this appeal is also allowed and the impugned judgment of the High Court as also of the Employees Insurance Court are set aside and the matter remanded to the Employees State Insurance Court for deciding a fresh after impleading the workers of the Respondent No. 1 or their union in a representative capacity. Since, the case pertains to the year 1987, we request the Employees State Insurance Court to decide the same expeditiously.

Appeal allowed. No order as to the costs. 7

SEPTMBER 17, 2009