L-NLProc/TathyaNyaya-and-FactLegalLlama-NyayaScrape-Datasets huggingface dataset:
Kalidas C. Patel (Dead) By Lrs vs Savitaben & Ors

2) In order to appreciate the short controversy involved in the appeal, few facts need mention.

4) The suit house is situated in village Sachan, Taluka Wagra, District Bharuch. One Bai Zaverben, widow of Chhaganbhai Govindbhai Patel was the owner of the suit house. She had let out the suit house to one Ranchhodbhai Govindbhai as her tenant on a monthly rent of Rs.3/-. He had also executed rent note in her favour. Bai Zaverben died in 1977. She had, however, executed a will in favour of one Kalidas Chunnilal Patel (the appellant herein-since dead and represented by his legal representatives) bequeathing the suit house to him. Kalidas Chunnilal Patel thus became the sole owner of the suit house on the strength of will after her death. The name of Kalidas Chunnilal Patel was accordingly mutated in revenue records as owner of the suit house. Kalidas Chunnilal Patel, by operation of law, then became landlord of the suit house

5) On 06.12.1978, Kalidas Chunnilal Patel served a legal notice to Ranchhodbhai Govindbhai demanding arrears of rent from 26.04.1976 to 06.12.1978 alleging that after the death of Bai Zaverben, he has not paid any rent to him. Kalidas Chunnilal Patel also demanded possession of the suit house alleging therein that he genuinely required the suit house for his personal residence. It was also stated that the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act”) does not apply to the suit house. Ranchhodbhai Govindbhai, on receipt of the notice, denied the allegations made therein by sending his reply.

16) The defendants, felt aggrieved, filed civil revision in the High Court. By impugned order, the High Court allowed the revision and set aside the judgment/order of the first appellate Court and remanded the case to the appellate Court with directions.

Since these findings were rendered in conformity with the requirements of the Act, we find no good ground to set aside these findings.

29) In the light of foregoing reasons, we are of the view that the High Court committed an error in remanding the case to the appellate Court for deciding these very issues afresh on their merits without there being any reason much less justifiable reason for passing such order.

31) In view of foregoing discussion, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. Impugned order is set aside and that of the order of the appellate Court restored.

32) The respondents are granted three months’ time to vacate the suit house provided they deposit the entire decreetal amount within one month and give usual undertaking before the Trial Court to vacate the suit house on or before three months and pay damages at the same rate of rent for three months for use and occupation of the suit house. Let the compliance be made within one month.

33) Failure to comply within time would disentitle the respondents to remain in occupation for three months and the appellants would be entitled to execute the decree against the respondents on the expiry of one month from the date of this judgment.

34) No costs.
United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs Leisure Wear Exports Ltd

2) These appeals involve a short point. However, to appreciate the point, few facts need mention infra.

3) The appellant - United India Insurance Company Ltd. is the non- applicant whereas the respondent - Leisure Wear Exports Ltd. is the complainant in the complaint filed before the State Consumer Commission, Punjab out of which these appeals arise.

4) The respondent/complainant is engaged in the business of sale of various kinds of hosiery goods and ready-made garments at Ludhiana. They also import and export the goods in which they trade. On 13.06.1996, the respondent obtained from the appellant one Open Marine Policy (Cargo) bearing No. 201002-21-99-042-96. The respondent also paid necessary premium. The policy covered the risk of all kinds of hosiery goods and ready-made garments kept in wooden and cardboard cases sent from any part of India to any friendly country in the world. The policy covered the risk under Institute Cargo Clause ‘A’, Inland Transit Clause ‘A’ and risk of war, SRCC, Riots, Strike valid for “Warehouse to warehouse at final destination”. The insurance covered the risk of the insured goods to the extent of Rs. 2 crores. It was subject to terms and conditions as were mutually agreed upon. The policy was for the period from 13.06.1996 to 12.06.1997.

5) The respondent received one order from one party-M/s Magna Overseas, Moscow for supply of hosiery goods and ready-made garments to them at Moscow. The respondent accordingly dispatched 320 cardboard cartons in two separate consignments - one was under cover note No. LDRO/26948 dated 20.06.1996 worth Rs.49,63,200/- and another was under

In substance, the case of the respondent in their complaint was that since the goods, which were lost, were admittedly got insured by the respondent with the appellant and, therefore, the respondent are entitled to claim compensation for the loss sustained by them from the appellant on the strength of the policy which covered such loss. It was alleged that the policy was admittedly in force when the loss occurred and hence the appellant cannot deny their liability to compensate the respondent for the loss caused to the goods of the respondent.

31) In view of foregoing discussion, we are of the considered opinion that in any event, the complaint filed by the respondent (insured) was maintainable and that the respondent had the locus to file the complaint against the appellant. It was, in our view, saved by Section 17 of the Act and by the authorization letter dated 04.07.1997, issued by the consignee in respondent’s favour.

35) So far as the findings relating to the merits of the case are concerned, learned counsel for the appellant did not challenge any of the findings in this appeal and in our opinion rightly. We, therefore, need not go into any of them.

36) In the light of aforesaid discussion, we find no merit in these appeals which fail and are hereby dismissed.
Jagat Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand

2) Brief facts:

Therefore, the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court requires no interference. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.”

16) We thus find that the compliance of Section 50 was made in letter and spirit as provided therein and, therefore, no fault can be found in ensuring its compliance.

17) In the light of these two material issues, which were proved by the prosecution by proper evidence, the two Courts below, in our opinion, rightly held that the prosecution was able to prove their case beyond the reasonable doubt against the appellant and hence the appellant had to suffer conviction as awarded by the Trial Court. We, therefore, concur with the finding of the two Courts which, in our view, does not call for any interference in this appeal.

19) We find no merit in the submission because the information received was recorded as a fact in the record. In this view of the matter, this submission is factually incorrect and hence rejected.

20) Learned counsel then urged some points relating to facts. Similarly some points were so technical that they do not need any mention nor elaboration. We were, therefore, not impressed by any of these submissions. These submissions are, therefore, rejected being devoid of any merit.

21) In the light of foregoing discussion, we find no merit in the appeal. The appeal thus fails and is accordingly dismissed.
Union Of India & Ors vs Diler Singh

The respondent, a constable in Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), was enrolled as such on 1.4.1990. He was posted in the 23 Battalion where he served continuously approximately for fourteen years. Subsequently, he was transferred to 61 Battalion where he served for two years. During the second posting a charge-sheet was served on him alleging that on 22.06.2001 about 11.30 hrs. he left the campus without permission of the competent authority and went to the bazaar and consumed liquor and quarrelled with some civilians. On being informed, S.I. Sheoji Ram, HC Mahabir Singh and Captain Fiyaz Ahmed brought him from bazaar to the campus. On the advice of the competent authority, a medical examination was conducted on the respondent and as per the medical report given by the assistant surgeon, District Hospital, Medak at Sangareddy, it was found that the respondent had consumed liquor.

2. On the basis of the aforesaid report, a departmental enquiry was ordered by Commandant 61-Bn. vide Memo No. P-VIII-8/01-61-EC-II dated 6.7.2001 and the respondent was also placed under suspension with effect from 6.7.2001. The enquiry officer conducted an enquiry and on the base of the material and testimony of the witnesses came to hold that the charges had been proved.

4. The respondent initiated a civil action by filing Civil Suit No.253/2002/05 in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Narnaul seeking a declaration that the orders passed against him by the authorities were illegal. The appellants contested the suit by putting forth a stand that due enquiry was held by the authorities and the charges levelled against the respondent were duly proved and there was no procedural error in the enquiry.

24. Consequently, the appeal is allowed, the judgment and decree passed by the High Court is set aside and that of the first appellate court is restored and the suit instituted by the respondent/plaintiff stands dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

[N.V. Ramana] New Delhi;

June 30, 2016
Harijan Paniben Dudabhai vs State Of Gujarat & Ors

6. Coming to the facts of the lead matter, one Vela Keshav, deceased husband of the appellant was appointed by Okha Gram Panchayat as Safai Kamdar on 04.02.1964. After having put in 33 years of service, he died in harness on 06.02.1997. The record indicates that monetary benefits such as Rs.14525.50 towards leave encashment, Rs.26,042/- towards Group Insurance and Rs.54,221/- towards General Provident Fund were paid to the appellant as legal representative of the deceased. The appellant represented that the family of Vela Keshav was also entitled to family pension and gratuity which claim having not been accepted, the appellant moved the High Court by filing Special Civil Application No. 354 of 2004.

8. The appellant being aggrieved carried the matter further by filing Letters Patent Appeal No.1522 of 2004. At the appellate stage affidavit in reply filed by District Development Officer, District Panchayat, Jamnagar reiterated the earlier stand. An affidavit in reply on behalf of the State Government was filed by Deputy Secretary, Panchayats, Rural Housing and Rule Development Department, Gandhi Nagar which dealt with the matter in issue in following terms.

……………………………..J, (V. Gopala Gowda) ……………………………..J. (Uday Umesh Lalit) New Delhi, July 1 , 2016
Nhpc Ltd vs M/S Jai Prakash Associates Ltd

6. The appellant-Government of India Company awarded a contract dated 21.03.2001 to respondent No.1 for doing some specific civil construction work in the project-Teesta V Hydroelectric Project at Sikkim known as Lot TT-4 civil works.

7. In execution of the aforesaid work, disputes regarding non-payment of dues for the work done by respondent No.1 and several ancillary disputes in connection thereto arose between the parties. Since the parties could not amicably settle the disputes and hence they were referred to the Arbitral Tribunal in terms of the arbitration clause contained in the contract. The Arbitral Tribunal consisted of three arbitrators.

9. By award dated 10.05.2008, the Arbitral Tribunal partly allowed the claim of respondent No.1 and accordingly awarded them a total sum of Rs.356.78 lacs. The Arbitral Tribunal also awarded 10% p.a. simple interest payable on the awarded sum (Rs.356.78 lacs) from the date of accrual of cause of action till the date of award and further awarded future interest at the rate of 12% p.a. on the awarded sum, i.e., Rs.451.49 lacs (Rs.356.78 lacs principal sum + Rs.94.71 lacs interest = Rs.451.49 lacs) payable from the date of award till recovery.

11. The appellant, felt aggrieved, challenged the order of the Additional District Judge and filed appeal before the High Court. By impugned order, the High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the order passed by the Additional District Judge.

16. In our opinion, the submission urged by the appellant appears to be correct and hence it deserves to be accepted. As mentioned above, even the respondent could not oppose the prayer made by the appellant which appear to be more in the nature of typographical error.

17. In the light of foregoing discussion, which is sufficient, the appeal succeeds and is allowed in part. Impugned order is modified to the extent that the awarded amount shall carry the interest at the same rates which were awarded by the Arbitral Tribunal in the award dated 10.5.2008. In other words, the awarded sum shall carry interest at the rate 10% p.a. payable from the date of accrual of cause of action till the date of award and shall further carry interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of award till recovery on the awarded sum as detailed in para 9 above.

18. No costs.

July 04, 2016
State Of Maharashtra & Ors vs Anita & Anr Etc

3. State of Maharashtra vide Government Resolution dated 21.08.2006 approved creation of 471 posts in various cadres including Legal Advisors, Law Officers and Law Instructors under the establishment of Director General of Police and Commissioner of Police, Greater Mumbai. As per clause (3) of the said Government Resolution, the posts shall be filled up on contractual basis as per the terms and conditions prescribed by the Government. By a subsequent Resolution dated 15.09.2006, the Government maintained that 471 posts created vide resolution dated 21.08.2006 shall be filled up on contractual basis by payment of consolidated pay. As per the conditions of service laid down in the Government Resolution dated 15.09.2006, the appointment was initially for eleven months and with a provision of extension up to maximum of three terms each term being of eleven months. After expiry of third term, the candidates are required to face fresh selection process once again. After the expiry of the term of respondents, their appointments automatically came to an end. In pursuance of the expiry of terms of respondents, the State issued fresh advertisements for recruitment of Legal Advisors, Law Officers and Law Instructors on 05.12.2009, 13.01.2010 etc.

4. On expiry of the contractual period and being aggrieved by publication of fresh advertisement, the respondents approached the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal challenging the conditions in the Government Resolutions dated 21.08.2006 and 15.09.2006, which laid down that the appointment of the law officers/law instructors shall be contractual, is arbitrary and that the respondents should have been appointed on regular pay scale and not on consolidated pay. The tribunal partly allowed the claim of the respondents and the tribunal struck down those provisions by holding that clause (3) of the Government Resolution dated 21.08.2006 and the clauses 'A', 'B', and 'C' in the Government Resolution dated 15.9.2006 suffered from arbitrariness and unreasonableness. However, no direction was issued by the tribunal directing the State Government to regularise the respondents.

As per clause 'B' of the Government Resolution dated 15.09.2006, the initial contractual period of appointment is eleven months and there is a provision for extension of contract for further eleven months. Clause 'B' makes it clear that the appointment could be made maximum three times and extension of contract beyond the third term is not allowed. If the competent authority is of the opinion that the reappointment of such candidates is necessary then such candidates would again have to face the selection process.

18. In the result, the impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside and these appeals are allowed.

19. Consequently, all other appeals are also allowed.

20. No costs.

….……...................CJI.

July 12, 2016.
Mulin Sharma vs State Of Assam & Ors

3) Brief facts:

(a) Mulin Sharma-the appellant herein, an M.A. in Sanskrit, was employed as an Assistant Teacher (Classical/Sanskrit) in the Rangsina High School, Karbi, Anglong District, Assam in the year 1995. The school was provincialized in the year 1996 as also the services of the appellant herein against the allotted post of Assistant Teacher.

(d) The writ petition was disposed of by the High Court by order dated 14.07.2003 with a direction that the appellant herein and Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 herein shall appear before the learned Deputy Commissioner, Karbi Anglong, Diphu. The Deputy Commissioner was further directed to determine the facts and circumstances under which the resignation letter came to be issued and signed by giving opportunity to both the sides.

(j) The Division Bench of the High Court, by common judgment and order dated 25.07.2012 denied back wages to the appellant herein while granting a sum of Rs. 25,000/- for wrongful denial of his employment during the abovesaid period in question. Writ Appeal No. 226 of 2009 was, however, dismissed by the Division Bench.

8) The High Court, on the other hand, dealt with the question of back wages left open by learned single Judge as well as the appeal filed by the respondents herein. The High Court, on a correct appreciation of evidence on record, dismissed the appeal filed by the respondents herein holding that the resignation was not voluntary. Though the High Court did not grant back wages to the appellant herein, a sum of Rs. 25,000/- was granted for wrongful denial of his employment.

13) In view of the above, the appeal is disposed of with the above terms.

JULY 12, 2016.
Velugubanti Hari Babu vs Parvathini Narasimha Rao And Anr

3. Facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. They, however, need mention in brief to appreciate the short controversy involved in the appeal.

5. According to the respondents, the appellant and the respondents entered into Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) dated 27.05.2013. The MoU, inter alia, provided that the respondents will resolve certain disputes that are pending between the appellant and certain other persons, namely, Mattaparthi Sivayya, Mattaparthi Satyanarayana and Mattaparthi Srinu, sons of late Appa Rao and another dispsute with Kanchumarthi Venkata Ramachandra Rao s/o Seetarama Rao, with respect to the land in question and, in return, the appellant will sell 50% of the land to the respondents at the rate of Rs.1 crore per acre. According to the respondents, as per the MoU, they paid a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- as token money to the appellant.

7. On 11.12.2013, the respondents sent a letter to the appellant. In the letter, it was alleged that since disputes have arisen between them in relation to execution of MoU and hence the respondents, in terms of MoU, appoint one Sanyasi Rao – retired District Judge as an arbitrator to decide the disputes.

22.3. The issues (third category) which the Chief Justice/his designate should leave exclusively to the Arbitral Tribunal are:

Unfortunately, it was not done.

29. In our opinion, this was sufficient for joining issue on the validity and genuineness of the MoU which was raised timely in appropriate proceedings by the appellant. The submission of Mr. Basant R. is, therefore, wholly devoid of merit and is accordingly rejected.

30. In view of foregoing discussion, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The case is remanded to the learned designate Judge to decide the question of legality, validity and genuineness of the agreement/(MoU) in question on its merits on the basis of pleadings and evidence of the parties keeping in view the law laid down by this Court in three decisions referred supra. Depending upon the findings on the question, appropriate orders including the order for appointment of arbitrator, if occasion arises, be passed for final disposal of the application filed under Section 11 of the Act.

31. No costs.
M/S Bharat Fabricators & Ors vs Spl.Court Under A.P.Land Grabng.Act& ...

Leave granted in both the matters.

Thereafter, further evidence was adduced on either side and after conducting fresh enquiry, the Special Tribunal again allowed the petition declaring Respondent Nos.1 to 7 before it as land grabbers and directed them to deliver vacant possession of the land to the applicant. However, the applicant’s claim for compensation was negatived. The contesting Respondent Nos.1, 2 & 5 to 7 again filed an appeal before the Special Court (L.G.A. No.21 of 1998) and the applicant filed cross-objections. The Special Court by its judgment dated 27.09.1999 dismissed the appeal as also the cross-objections.

The appellants herein, who were not parties either before the Special Tribunal or before the Special Court, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh, being Writ Petition No.25273 of 1999, for a declaration that the orders of the Special Tribunal as well as the Special Court are not applicable to their industrial units, maintaining that they had been in peaceful possession and occupation of the plots in dispute for the last more than 50 years, and Respondent No.3, who was allotted a plot of land, on lease, by the Government for establishing industrial units, obtained another plot of land to an extent of 3000 Sq. Yds. and by initiating land grabbing proceedings against others, in collusion with the respondents, wanted to grab the lands of the appellants without impleading them. The said writ petition was dismissed by the High Court on 30.04.2007.

The appellants thereafter filed a review petition before the High Court which was also dismissed. However, the appellants were granted three months’ time to vacate the premises. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the writ petition and subsequently, dismissal of the review petition, the appellants have approached this Court.

The present appeals therefore must fail and we are not inclined to interfere with the decision arrived at by the High Court which is based on a correct analysis of facts and law and rendered in the rational exercise of its discretion. These appeals are accordingly dismissed.

….....….……………………J (Pinaki Chandra Ghose) ….....…..…………………..J (Amitava Roy) New Delhi;

July 15, 2016.