L-NLProc/TathyaNyaya-and-FactLegalLlama-NyayaScrape-Datasets huggingface dataset:
Jugesh Sehgal vs Shamsher Singh Gogi

4. Dissatisfied with the response to the legal notice, the complainant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Act against the afore-noted four persons. Paragraph 3 of the complaint, which contains the gist of complainant's case and has a bearing on the issue involved in this appeal, reads as follows:

11. In the case before us, it is clear from the facts, briefly noted above, and in para 3 of the complaint as extracted, that on receipt of the return memo from the bank, the complainant is stated to have realized that the dishonoured cheque was issued from an account which was not maintained by accused No.1--the appellant herein, but by one Shilpa Chaudhary. As a matter of fact and perhaps having gained the said knowledge, on 20th January, 2001, the complainant filed an FIR against all 9 the accused for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 406 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Thus, there is hardly any dispute that the cheque, subject matter of the complaint under Section 138 of the Act, had not been drawn by the appellant on an account maintained by him in the Indian Bank, Sonepat branch. That being so, there is little doubt that the very first ingredient of Section 138 of the Act, enumerated above, is not satisfied and consequently the case against the appellant for having committed an offence under Section 138 of the Act cannot be proved.

18. In the result, the appeal is allowed; the impugned order is set aside and as a consequence, Criminal Complaint No. 275 of 2008 pending against the appellant in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panipat is quashed.

JULY 10, 2009.
New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs Suresh Chandra Aggarwal

2. Briefly stated, the material facts giving rise to the appeal are:

3. The appellant appointed a surveyor to assess the damage caused to the car. On the recommendation of the surveyor, the driving licence of the deceased driver was got verified from the office of the Regional Transport Authority (Licensing), Bhopal. The certificate issued by the said authority showed that the driving licence of the deceased driver was valid from 26th October, 1988 to 25th October, 1991 and then from 23rd March, 1992 to 22nd March, 1995. On receipt of the said verification report, the appellant repudiated the claim of the claimant on the ground that the driver of the vehicle was not holding an effective driving licence at the time of accident as his licence was valid 3 only up to 25th October, 1991, which had been renewed by the licensing authority only with effect from 23rd March, 1992 whereas the accident took place on 29th February, 1992.

4. Being aggrieved by the said decision of the appellant, the claimant filed a complaint before the District Forum, Betul claiming a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. The claim was contested by the appellant on the ground that there was a breach of one of the conditions in the insurance policy inasmuch as the accidental vehicle was being driven by a person who, at the time of accident, did not hold an effective driving licence. The District Forum, upon consideration of the rival contentions of the parties, accepted the complaint and directed the appellant to pay Rs.1,00,000/- to the claimant as compensation for damage to the car, besides costs.

5. Aggrieved by the order passed by the District Forum, the appellant as well as the claimant preferred appeals to the State Commission. The stand of the appellant was that they were not liable to pay any compensation because the vehicle was being driven by a person who did not have an effective licence at the time of accident whereas the grievance of the claimant was with regard to the inadequacy of the compensation awarded. The State Commission found that although the licence of the deceased driver was valid up to 25th October, 1991 4 but the same had been renewed subsequently and, therefore, since he had not been disqualified to hold such a licence, the claim of the claimant could not be rejected on the ground that the licence had not been renewed on time. The compensation awarded was also held to be adequate. Accordingly, both the appeals were dismissed.

6. Not being satisfied with the approach of the State Commission, the appellant preferred a Revision Petition before the National Commission. Following the decision of this Court in Ashok Gangadhar Maratha Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.1, the National Commission, as noted above, dismissed the Revision Petition. It is this order which is under challenge in this appeal.

21.For the aforesaid reasons, in our opinion, the decision of the National Commission cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed 1 3 and the impugned order is set aside. There will, however, be no order as to costs.

JULY 10, 2009.
K. Sharadarani Srinivas vs Special Land Acquisition Officer & Anr

The appellant's land situated within the area of Bagalkot Municipality was acquired in the year 1991. For this purpose, Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [for short "the Act"] was issued on 4.9.1991. By an award dated 15.2.1995, the Land Acquisition Officer fixed the market value of the land at Rs.175 per sq. meter. On an application made by the appellant, the Collector made a reference under Section 18 of the Act. Before the Reference Court, the appellant filed three sale deeds dated 1.4.1952, 9.1.1957 and 19.10.1977 which were marked as Exhibits P.2, P.3 and P.4 respectively. The Reference Court relied upon Exhibit P.4 vide which 300 sq. feet land was sold for a sum of Rs.10,702/- (Rs.384 per sq. meter) and enhanced the compensation from Rs.175 per sq. meter to Rs.700 per sq. meter by giving ten per cent increase per annum.

We have carefully gone through the judgment in Special Land Acquisition Officer, BTDA, Bagalkot vs. Mohd. Hanif Sahib Bawa Sahib and are of the view that the issue raised in the present appeal is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment because this Court categorically upheld the increase of ten per cent per annum with reference to the sale deed of an earlier year.

Accordingly, the civil appeal is allowed, impugned order rendered by the High Court is set aside and the same passed by the Reference Court is restored.

No costs.
Dipali Dey(Baxi) vs Mira Das

2. In our view, the High Court had acted in excess of its jurisdiction by interfering with the concurrent orders passed by the courts below allowing an application for injunction directing the respondent to restore the electric supply in the suit premises in favour of the appellant who is a divorcee residing in the same with her son. The suit that has been filed by the appellant is for declaration that she is a tenant in respect of the premises in question at a 1 rental of Rs.150/- per month. The case made out in the plaint is, inter alia, to the effect that she has been paying the rent but no rent receipts had been granted to her. Since the electric supply was disconnected by the respondent, she filed an application for injunction directing the respondent to restore the electric supply in her tenanted premises. Both the courts below concurrently allowed the application and directed restoration of electric supply to the tenanted premises where the appellant is residing. Against these orders, a revision was moved by the respondent which was allowed by the High Court. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the High Court, the appellant has come up before this Court by way of a special leave petition, which, on grant of leave, was heard in the presence of learned counsel for the parties.

4. That being the position, the impugned order is set aside and the orders passed by the courts below are restored. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, we direct that 3 Suit No.150/2001 and eviction suit being T.S.No.166 of 2001 filed by the respondent, both pending in the same court, shall be disposed of within six months from the date of supply of a copy of this order to the trial court without granting any unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties.

5. For the reasons aforesaid, the impugned order is set aside. The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. There will be no order as to costs.
Subodh Kumar Yadav vs State Of Bihar & Anr

3. The marriage of the appellant was solemnized with the respondent No. 2 on June 22, 1989. After 3 the marriage, the respondent No. 2 started living with the appellant at her matrimonial home. During the subsistence of the marriage, the respondent No. 2 gave birth to two daughters. It is the case of the respondent No. 2 that the appellant and his family members started subjecting her to mental and physical cruelty for bringing insufficient dowry and also because she objected to illicit relations of the appellant with his sister-in-law Asha Devi. The case of the respondent No. 2 is that not only she was subjected to physical and mental cruelty, but money was extorted from her in order to get more dowry and an attempt to kill her was made as well as her streedhan was not returned to her in spite of several demands. Under the circumstances, she filed complaint case No. 1098 of 2001 in the Court of learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Purnia and prayed to convict the appellant and others for commission of offences 4 punishable under Sections 498A, 384, 307 and 406 IPC.

4. The learned Magistrate examined the respondent No. 2 on oath. The learned Magistrate thereafter called upon the respondent No. 2 to offer other witnesses for examination. Therefore, Bhageshwar Prasad Yadav, who is father of the respondent No. 2, was examined as witness No. 1, Birendra Kumar, an independent person, was examined as witness No.2 and Ramanuj Kumar, who is cousin of the respondent No. 2, was examined as witness No. 3. The learned Magistrate perused the statements made by the witnesses and was of the opinion that prima facie commission of offence punishable under Section 498A IPC was made out against the accused. He, therefore, took cognizance of the said offence and issued summons against the accused including the appellant. On receipt of summons, 5 the appellant and others filed Criminal Revision No. 233 of 2002 in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Purnia for quashing the same. Therefore, the record of the case was called for by the Sessions Court from the Court of learned Magistrate.

2. Further, while cancelling bail, the superior Court would be justified in considering the question whether irrelevant material were taken into consideration by the court granting bail.

3. For the foregoing reasons the appeal fails and is dismissed.

July 15, 2009.
M/S. Hotel New Nalanda vs Regional Director, E.S.I. Corpn

1. In an inspection held on May 7, 1991, the officers of the Employees' State Insurance Corporation found that there were 15 persons working as employees in the appellant-establishment, called M/s. Hotel New Nalanda. They also found a refrigerator and an electric grinder in use there in the `manufacturing process'. On the basis of the inspection the officers of the Corporation took the view that the appellant-establishment was a factory within the meaning of section 2(12) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 and it came within the purview of the Act. They, accordingly, asked the Managing Director of the establishment to comply with the provisions of the Act provisionally with effect from May 7, 1991, the date of the inspection.

6. On hearing the parties and on a consideration of the materials on record, the Insurance Court found and held that as a matter of fact 14 persons were employed in the establishment; the fifteenth person named in the inspection report was the Managing Partner and he could not be counted among the employees in the establishment. The Insurance Court further held there was no satisfactory evidence that there was a refrigerator and a grinder being used in any manufacturing process being carried on in the establishment. On the basis of the second finding the Insurance Court came to hold that the establishment in question was not a factory within the meaning of section 2(12) of the ESI Act and it was not covered by the Act. It, accordingly, allowed the application filed by the appellant by its judgment and order dated April 2, 1998.

14. On hearing counsel for the parties and on a careful consideration of materials on record we are satisfied that the Insurance Court had come to a reasonable finding of fact. Against this finding neither any appeal was maintainable under section 82(2) of the Act nor was the High Court justified in interfering with it. We, accordingly, find the judgment of the High Court unsustainable. It is set aside. In the result the appeal is allowed but with no order as to costs.

DATE : 15/07/2009 This matter was called on for pronouncement of judgment today.

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aftab Alam pronounced the judgment of the Bench comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarun Chatterjee and his Lordship.

The appeal is allowed with no order as to costs, in terms of the signed judgment which is placed on the file.
Maruti Suzuki India Ltd vs Rajiv Kumar Loomba & Anr

4. It appears that a complaint had been filed by the respondent No. 1 herein against the appellant herein before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chandigarh. The grievance of the complainant in the complaint was that although a catalytic converter was not fixed in the Maruti car which was sold to him by the appellant, yet he has been charged a sum of Rs.7,000/- for the same. The complainant claimed that he should be refunded the sum of Rs.7,000/-. The claim of the 2 complainant-respondent No. 1 was allowed by the District Consumer Forum, Chandigarh vide order dated 3.12.1996. Against the said order of the District Forum, the appellant filed an appeal before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Union Territory, Chandigarh which was dismissed vide order dated 18th March, 1998. Thereafter the appellant preferred a revision before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission which has been dismissed by the impugned order. Hence, this appeal by special leave.

6. The respondent No. 1, at the relevant time lived in Chandigarh. Hence, he alleged that he was under no legal obligation to get fitted a catalytic converter in his Maruti car nor did he actually get the same fitted in his car purchased from the appellant. Thus, he should not have been charged an extra Rs. 7,000/- for his Maruti car as a person living in the four Metropolitan Cities abovementioned alone have to have a catalytic converter in his car.

15. Mr. Bhasin also submitted that the Central Government had directed that the same price be charged for all cars, whether fitted with a converter or not. No such government directive is on the record of this case, but even if there is such a directive, in our opinion, it will be arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

17. For the reasons stated above, we find no force in this appeal. It is dismissed accordingly. No order as to the costs.

Civil Appeal No. 1842/2003

18. For the reasons mentioned in our order in Civil Appeal No. 1841/2003, this appeal is also dismissed. No order as to the costs.

JULY 15, 2009
Ghulam Rasool Lone vs State Of J & K & Ors

2. SWP No.519 of 1987 was filed by one of them, named Abdul Rashid Rather, a Constable. It was allowed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court by an order dated 24th September, 1998. A Letters Patent Appeal 2 filed thereagainst was dismissed by a Division Bench of the High Court by its order dated 30th July, 1999. It is stated that a Special Leave Petition filed against the said order was also dismissed by this Court.

3. Another writ petition was filed by four persons, namely - Maharaj Krishan Bhatt, Mohammad Amin, Bansilal Bhatt and Mohammad Abbas Najar in the year 1997, which was registered as SWP No.3735 of 1997, praying for their promotion to the post of Sub-Inspector with effect from the date on which Hamiddulah Dar, who was said to be junior to the petitioners, was promoted. A learned Single Judge of the High Court allowed the said writ petition by an order dated 30th April, 2001. On an intra court appeal having been preferred, a Division Bench of the said Court by its order dated 11th October, 2002 allowed the same. A Special Leave Petition was filed thereagainst by Maharaj Krishan Bhatt and Bansi Lal Bhatt before this Court. Special leave having granted, the matter was registered as Civil Appeal Nos. 8481-8482 of 2003. A Division Bench of this Court allowed the said appeal by an order dated 1st August, 2008 which has since been reported in 2008 (9) SCC 24.

4. Petitioner filed a writ petition which was registered as SWP No. 742 of 2000. It was allowed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court by his order dated 4th December, 2003. Letters Patent Appeal filed by the State of 3 Jammu and Kashmir, however, has been allowed by reason of the impugned judgment and order dated 19th March, 2009.

17. It is beyond any cavil of doubt that the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is a discretionary one. For sufficient or cogent reasons a court may in a given case refuse to exercise its jurisdiction ; delay and latches being one of them.

The Division Bench, therefore, in our opinion rightly opined that the petitioner was sitting on the fence.

19. If at this late juncture the petitioner is directed to be promoted to the post of Sub-Inspector even above Abdul Rashid Rather, the seniority of those who had been promoted in the meantime or have been directly recruited would be affected. The State would also have to pay the back wages to him which would be a drainage of public funds. Whereas an employee cannot be denied his promotion in terms of the Rules, the same cannot be granted out of the way as a result whereof the rights of third parties are affected. The aspect of public interest as also the general administration must, therefore, be kept in mind while granting equitable relief.

21. For the reasons aforementioned, we are of the opinion that the judgment of the Division Bench cannot be said either to be arbitrary or illegal. This Special Leave Petition is dismissed summarily.

..................................J. [ S.B. SINHA ] ..................................J. [ DEEPAK VERMA ] New Delhi July 16, 2009
Ghanshyam Dass Relhan vs State Of Haryana & Ors

2. On 11.10.1976 some posts of Senior Accountants were advertised by the Kurukshetra Central Bank Limited and upon his application through proper channel he was selected for one of the said posts. After taking permission of the Government of Haryana the petitioner resigned from the post of Stenographer and relinquished charge on 10.1.1977 when he joined the said Bank as Senior Accountant. The petitioner retired from the service of the Bank on superannuation on 30.9.1997 and was paid Contributory Provident Fund, Gratuity and Leave Encashment, but not pension. The petitioner thereupon made a representation to the Chief Secretary, Government of Haryana, for grant of pension as he had rendered 18 years 2 months and 3 days of service between 7.11.1958 to 10.1.1977 in the office of Deputy Commissioner, Hisar, Karnal and Kurukshetra. On being asked to submit an application for pension in the prescribed proforma the petitioner submitted the same on 14.4.2003 to 3 the Deputy Commissioner, Kurukshetra. On 17.5.2005, the petitioner was informed by the Deputy Commissioner, Kurukshetra, that he could not be given pension in view of Rule 4.19 and Note 1 of Rule No.5.32(b) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules. The said decision was challenged by the petitioner in Civil Writ Petition No.8666 of 2005 in the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which dismissed the Writ Petition on 7.8.2006 upon holding that the petitioner was not entitled to pension under Rule 5.2(a) of the aforesaid Rules because he had not rendered qualifying service of at least 30 years. The said decision of the High Court has been challenged in this Special Leave Petition.

20. We, therefore, see no reason to interfere with the judgment of the High Court and the Special Leave Petition is, therefore, dismissed, but without any order as to costs.

________________J.

(ALTAMAS KABIR) ________________J.

(CYRIAC JOSEPH) New Delhi Dated: 16.07.2009
M/S Dulari Exports Ltd & Ors vs H.S.I.D.C. Ltd. & Ors

4. Our attention has furthermore been drawn to certain factual errors purported to have been committed by this Court while noticing the facts of the matter.

We may, therefore, place on record the facts as stated before us by Mr. Bali so far as the same are relevant.

The Review-Petitioners had paid four installments. They did not pay the fifth installment within the prescribed time. They submitted a demand draft of Rs.19,00,253/- towards fifth installment. The Corporation by a letter dated 30th January, 2004 referring to its earlier order dated 1st January 2004 by which a show cause notice was issued to it on account of non commencement of construction within the stipulated period as also the subsequent reply of the petitioners dated 9th January 2004, stated:-

8. We may, however, before parting, place on record that Mr. Bali contended that the requisite amount had been tendered to the Corporation but the same had been returned on the ground of pendency of the review application. If that be so, in the event, the Review-Petitioners tender the requisite amount to the Corporation within a period of seven days from date, the same shall be accepted without any demur whatsoever.

9. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the application for review on merit must be dismissed. The Review Petition is dismissed accordingly with costs payable to the Corporation. Counsel's fee is assessed at Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only).

July 16, 2009
National Insurance Co.Ltd vs Saheb Singh

The respondent filed a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh [for short, "the District Forum"] for award of compensation of Rs.2,27,730/- with interest @ 18% per annum in lieu of damage caused to the truck which was insured with the appellant. The District Forum dismissed the complaint on the ground that licence of the driver of the truck viz., Khel Singh was fake. On appeal, the Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission [for short, "the State Commission"] concurred with the District Forum that the licence of the driver was fake but, it granted relief to the complainant by relying upon the judgement of this Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Swaran Singh [2004 (3) S.C.C.297]. The order of the State Commission has been confirmed by the National Consumer ...2/-

We have carefully gone through the record and are satisfied that the issue raised in this appeal is covered by the judgment in Laxmi Narain Dhut's case and on that ground the orders passed by the State Commission and National Commission are liable to be set aside.

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, impugned orders passed by the State Commission as well as by the National Commission are set aside and the order rendered by the District Forum dismissing the complaint is restored.
B.V.Smitha Rani vs M.K.Girish

The parties were married on 28.5.2003. After sometime, the appellant- wife filed Matrimonial Case No.82/2005 for grant of divorce on the ground of cruelty. In support of her case, the appellant examined herself as PW-1 on 7.9.2006. On that day, the respondent-husband remained absent and his lawyer did not cross- examine the appellant. Thereafter, the case was posted for evidence of the respondent on 28.9.2006. At that stage, the respondent applied for recording his evidence by video conferencing. The Family Court rejected his prayer and the special leave petition filed by him was dismissed by this Court. On 28.9.2006, the respondent's counsel filed vakalatnama and written statement. The Family Court rejected the written statement on the ground of undue delay. Thereupon, the respondent filed writ petition no.1031 of 2006, which was ...2/-

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, impugned order rendered by the High Court is set aside and the matter is remanded to it to dispose of the appeal on merits in accordance with law after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties.