L-NLProc/TathyaNyaya-and-FactLegalLlama-NyayaScrape-Datasets huggingface dataset:
Sandhya vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors

3. The factual matrix of the case is as follows:

Their payments are being made out of copying fees received by the department, 70% of which was for payment of wages to the said unpaid candidates and 30% share was credited to the Government.

4. The applications were called for appointment to Clerical posts. The appellant and others were declared successful. Those whose names were appearing in the main selection list were appointed against the Clerical post. Rest in the waiting list were allowed to work as unpaid candidates. Since 4th July, 1985, the appellant is working as unpaid candidate in the City Survey Office at Dhule, Maharasthra.

12. The appellant and others challenged their respective orders of termination before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench at Aurangabad and prayed for directions on respondents for regularisation of their services.

13. After hearing the parties, the Tribunal by its common judgment dated 24th November, 2011 passed in Original Application No.202/1998 (Smt. Rajani vs. Government of Maharashtra etc.), including Original Application No.293/1998 preferred by the appellant, allowed the applications, set aside their respective orders of termination with direction to the respondents to take action for regularisation of services of all the applicants including the appellant herein in accordance with GR dated 10th March, 2005. It was directed to pass appropriate orders within three months.

19. For the reason aforesaid, the impugned judgment passed by the High Court cannot be upheld. The impugned judgment dated 15th March, 2013 passed by the High Court is set aside. The respondents are directed to comply with the order and directions passed by the Tribunal on 24th November, 2011 in OA No. 293/1998 and regularize the services of the appellant with retrospective effect within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. The appeal is allowed with the aforesaid direction and observation. No costs.

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya pronounced the reportable judgment of the Bench comprising His Lordship and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dipak Misra.

The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed reportable judgment.

[Signed reportable judgment is placed on the file]
M/S. Kaikara Construction Co vs State Of Kerala And Ors

3. The factual matrix of the case is as follows:

According to the appellant, a sum of Rs.1,18,87,265/- was payable to it but the said amount was withheld by the respondents. As a condition for releasing the amount, the appellant was compelled to execute a supplemental agreement. The appellant sought extension of the period for completion of the work which was granted up to 1.3.2009. On 7.3.2009, the appellant requested for appointment of a ‘Dispute Review Expert’ as stipulated in the General Conditions of Contract. On 9.5.2009, the appellant again made a request for appointment of ‘Dispute Review Expert’ and also for extension of the "intended completion period". Another letter dated 10.6.2009 was written by the appellant to the Chairman of the Council of Indian Roads Congress with similar prayer to appoint a ‘Dispute Review Expert’ as stipulated in Clause 36.1 of ITB forming part of the agreement without any delay, with due intimation to the appellant in writing.

5. Review Petition filed by the appellant was also rejected by order dated 2.02.2011.

15. In view of stand taken by the parties and as they mutually agreed for arbitration by retired Hon’ble Judge of the Kerala High Court, without going into the question of merit, we set aside the impugned order dated 19th July, 2010 and refer the matter to Hon’ble Mr. Justice K. John Mathew (retired). The parties will negotiate and settle the terms and conditions of arbitration. It is expected that the arbitration proceeding will be concluded at an early date.

16. The appeals stand disposed of with aforesaid observations. No costs.

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya pronounced the reportable judgment of the Bench comprising His Lordship and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dipak Misra.

The appeals are allowed in terms of the signed reportable judgment.

[Signed reportable judgment is placed on the file]
M/S Bhandari Udyog Ltd vs Industrial Facilitation Council & Anr

3. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass.

4. The Appellant Company is running a small scale industry at Raichur in the State of Karnataka and is engaged in the business of cotton ginning, pressing while extraction and in marketing the finished products. Whereas Respondent No.2 is running a cotton spinning mill at Latur in the State of Maharashtra. Respondent no.2 purchased 750 bales of cotton from the appellant-company and made part payment to the appellant. The balance amount was not paid which led to a dispute between the parties.

5. It further appears that the appellant filed an application under Sections 3 and 4 of the Interest on Delayed Payments to Small Scale and Ancillary Industrial Undertakings Act,1993 (for short 'IDP Act') before respondent no.1, the Industrial Facilitation Council (for short 'IFC') to arbitrate the dispute between the appellant and respondent no.2. The appellant thereafter filed a petition before the Karnataka High Court under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'Act of 1996') for appointment of Arbitrator. The said petition was allowed by the Chief Justice Designate and directed respondent No.1 (IFC) to decide the dispute between the parties. The respondent no.1 passed an Award on 16.8.2010 directing respondent no.2 to pay a sum of Rs.20,25,213.54 with interest.

11. We, after giving our anxious consideration to the matter, are of the view that the District Court at Latur and High Court of Bombay have committed error of law in entertaining the application under Section 34 of the Act and dismissing the revision petition.

12. We, therefore, allow this appeal and set aside the order passed by the High Court. There shall be no order as to costs.

C.A. No. 2077 of 2015 @ Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 8675/2014 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 21/11/2013 in CRA No. 179/2013 passed by the High Court Of Bombay Bench at Aurangabad) M/S BHANDARI UDYOG LTD Petitioner(s) VERSUS INDUSTRIAL FACILITATION COUNCIL & ANR Respondent(s) Date : 20/02/2015 This appeal was called on for judgment today.

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Anand Shrivastava, Adv. for M/s. Lex Regis Law Offices For Respondent(s) Mr. Shirish K. Deshpande,Adv.

Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.Y. Eqbal pronounced the judgment of the Bench comprising His Lordship and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph.

Leave granted.

Appeal is allowed in terms of signed reportable judgment. No costs.

[SIGNED REPORTABLE JUDGMENT IS PLACED ON THE FILE]
Ravi Prakash Singh @ Arvind Singh vs State Of Bihar

2. Brief facts of the case are that appellant Ravi Prakash Singh @ Arvind Singh surrendered before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaimur on 5.7.2013 in connection with Crime No. 89 of 2013, registered at Police Station, Chainpur, relating to offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 and Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 27 of Arms Act. He was remanded to judicial custody till 19.7.2013. His remand was extended under Section 167 of the Code from time to time, and the last remand under said provision was granted till 3.10.2013. On 3.10.2013, the appellant moved an application under Section 167(2) of the Code for his release on the ground that the charge sheet has not been filed. On the same day, i.e., 3.10.2013, it was endorsed in the order sheet by the Chief Judicial Magistrate that as per report of the clerk of the Court, charge sheet has already been received, as such, the bail application moved under Section 167(2) of the Code was rejected by the Magistrate on the very day and further remand order was passed under Section 209 of the Code. Endorsement "seen" was also made by the Magistrate on 3.10.2013 on the charge- sheet.

Explanation I. - For the avoidance of doubts, it is hereby declared that, notwithstanding the expiry of the period specified in paragraph (a), the accused shall be detained in Custody so long as he does not furnish bail.

13. For the reasons, as discussed above, in our opinion, the High Court has not erred in law in dismissing the petition under Section 482 of the Code, and upholding the refusal of bail to appellant prayed by him under Section 167(2) of the Code.

14. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Lower court record be sent back forthwith.

February 20, 2015.
Sunil Haribhau Kale vs Avinash Gulabrao Mardikar And Ors

(Emphasis supplied) The request was granted and, by order dated 11.04.2012, the group was recognized and the first respondent was registered as the group leader. Seeking a change of the leader, the General Secretary of the Nationalist Congress Party, on 22.03.2014, addressed the following letter to the Divisional Commissioner, relevant port of which reads as follows:

Aggrieved, the appeal.

Thus, although for a few other different reasons as well, apart from those sounded by the High Court in the impugned order, we agree with the view taken by the High Court. The appeal hence is dismissed. The interim order dated 05.09.2014 is vacated.

There shall be no order as to costs.

February 20, 2015.

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 26218/2014 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 22/08/2014 in WP No. 2772/2014 passed by the High Court Of Bombay) SUNIL HARIBHAU KALE Petitioner(s) VERSUS AVINASH GULABRAO MARDIKAR AND ORS Respondent(s) Date : 20/02/2015 This petition was called on for judgment today.

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph pronounced the judgment of the Bench comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.Y. Eqbal and His Lordship.

Leave granted.

Appeal is dismissed in terms of signed reportable judgment. No costs.

[SIGNED REPORTABLE JUDGMENT IS PLACED ON THE FILE]

REPORTABLE
S. Perumal vs K. Ambika & Anr

3. The brief facts of the case are:- On 18.11.2009, a lorry bearing Registration No. TN 27 0907 owned by Respondent No.1, while driven by his driver in a rash and negligent manner dashed TVS 50 (bearing Registration No. TN 28 X 4892) driven by the appellant from behind, due to which appellant sustained in the eye-brow, chest and multiple injuries all over the body. The second respondent herein is an insurance company with which the vehicle involved in the accident was insured.

4. Appellant filed an application before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in the alleged accident. The tribunal upon consideration of the rival contentions, vide order dated 9.09.2011 awarded compensation of Rs.25,300/- alongwith interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. The appellant being dissatisfied with the amount of compensation, approached the High Court of Judicature at Madras in C.M.A. No.554/2013, wherein vide impugned judgment dated 27.2.2013, the High Court refused to interfere with the findings of the tribunal on the ground that the appellant has suffered only simple injuries.

15. We shall now consider the question as to what is just and reasonable compensation to be awarded to the claimant. The claimant was a poultry labourer, he would have earned not less than Rs.4,500/- per month. Considering the nature of occupation of the claimant and the 25% disability, in our considered view, lumpsum compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- towards loss of future earnings, on account of permanent disability, Rs.13,500/- (Rs.4,500 x 3) is awarded for the loss of earning during the period of treatment. Considering the nature of treatment and the medical bills (Exp.5), for which an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- is awarded towards medical expenses; Rs.50,000/- is awarded towards pain and sufferings; Rs.10,000/- is awarded for transport charges and Rs.10,000/- is awarded for attendant charges; Rs.10,000/- is awarded towards extra nourishment and Rs.50,000/- is awarded towards loss of amenities.

16. The compensation of Rs.25,300/- awarded to the claimant is enhanced to Rs.4,43,500/- payable with interest at the rate of 9% from the date of the claim petition. The first respondent-insurance company is directed to deposit balance compensation of Rs.4,18,200/- with interest within a period of four weeks from the receipt of the copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the same shall be disbursed to the claimant.

17. In the result, appeal is allowed in terms of the above directions. Parties are directed to bear their own costs.

February 24, 2015
Subhash @ Dhillu vs State Of Haryana

2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant Bal Kishan and his nephew Sanjay were going on a motorcycle carrying Rs.46,000/- with them in the dicky, for purchasing a piece of land. While they were near a Farm, two accused persons - Manjeet and Bijender (not appellants herein) came from behind in Maruti car. They brandished country made pistol and asked the complainant to stop and as the complainant stopped, the accused persons asked them to hand over the money. The complainant handed over the key of the motorcycle to them. The accused persons took out the money and sped away. The complainant gave the information of this incident to ASI Rajinder Kumar whom he met on the way to the Police Station. On the basis of this information an FIR was registered at Sonepat Police Station. The accused were charge-sheeted for the offence punishable under Sections 120-B, 392, 397 of the IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act. The Trial Court convicted all the four accused persons and sentenced them for various offences. Accused Manjeet and Bijender were sentenced to undergo five years' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- under Section 392 of IPC. They were further sentenced to undergo 10 years' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each under Section 397 of IPC. Accused Manjeet was further sentenced to undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.500/- under Section 25 of the Arms Act. Accused Mukesh and Subhash (appellants herein) were sentenced to undergo 10 years' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each, under Section 120-B of IPC as according to the Trial Court, the robbery was committed after the conspiracy hatched with them.

5. To make out the offence under Section 120-B of IPC, the prosecution must lead evidence to prove the existence of some agreement between the accused persons. There is no specific evidence as to where and when the conspiracy was hatched and what was the specific purpose of such conspiracy. No such evidence has been adduced in the present case. Therefore, in our opinion, the conviction and sentence of the appellants have to be set aside. Accordingly, the judgment and order dated 7.9.2009 passed by the High Court and the judgment dated 20.3.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat, so far as it relates to convicting the appellants, are set aside and these appeals are allowed. Appellant in Criminal Appeal No.1328 of 2013 is directed to be released forthwith unless required in connection with any other case. Appellant in Criminal Appeal No.1375 of 2010 is already released on bail granted by this Court. His bail bonds shall stand discharged. There shall be no order as to costs.

..J. (Abhay Manohar Sapre) New Delhi;

February 25, 2015.
K.P. Manu,Malabar Cements Ltd vs Chairman,Scrutiny Commt .V.C.Cert.& ...

The facts giving rise to the present appeal are that one Shri S. Sreekumar Menon invoked the jurisdiction of the Scrutiny Committee under Section 11(3) of the Act challenging the grant of caste certificate, namely, Hindu Pulaya to the appellant on the ground that the said certificate had been obtained by him on misrepresentation, and that apart the concerned authority had issued the caste certificate in total transgression of law. The Committee conducted an enquiry and eventually by its order dated 4th February, 2006 had returned a finding that the appellant was erroneously issued a caste certificate inasmuch as he was not of Hindu origin and hence, could not have been conferred the benefit of the caste status. It is not in dispute that the great grandfather of the appellant belonged to Hindu Pulaya Community. His son Chothi embraced Christianity and accepted a new name, that is, Varghese who married Mariam who originally belonged to Hindu Ezhava community and later on converted to Christianity. In the wedlock three sons, namely, Varghese, Yohannan and Paulose were born. The father of the appellant, Paulose, got married to Kunjamma who was a Christian. The appellant who was born on 03.01.1960 sometime in the year 1984 at the age of 24 converted himself to Hindu religion and changed his name to that of K.P. Manu. On the basis of the conversion he applied for a caste certificate to Akhila Bharata Ayyappa Seva Sangham. Be it stated, the appellant after conversion had obtained a certificate from the concerned community on 5th February, 1984. Eventually, the Tehsildar who was authorised to issue the caste certificate had issued the necessary caste certificate.

On the basis of the aforesaid report of the Scrutiny Committee, the State Government took action and directed the employer of the appellant, respondent No. 2 herein, to remove him from service and recover a sum of Rs.15 lakhs towards the salary paid to him. The said report of the Committee and the order in sequitur having the base on the report were the subject matter of challenge before the High Court in appeal.

[Emphasis added]

46. Consequently, the appeal is allowed and the judgment and order of the High Court, findings of the Scrutiny Committee and the orders passed by the State Government and the second respondent are set aside. The appellant shall be reinstated in service forthwith with all the benefits relating to seniority and his caste, and shall also be paid backwages upto 75% within eight weeks from today. There shall be no order as to costs.
Tejram Patil vs State Of Maharashtra

2. Deceased Savita was married to the appellant about three years prior to the date of the incident in question, i.e., on 28th March, 1999. One son and one daughter were born out of the wedlock. They were living in a rented house owned by PW1 Vimalbai.

3. According to the prosecution, the deceased was subjected to cruelty and on the fateful day, the appellant returned home in drunken condition and started abusing the deceased and her mother Prabha Bai who had come on a visit to her daughter’s house. Thereafter, the appellant poured kerosene on the deceased and set her on fire. Prabhabai and Vimalbai, PW1, tried to extinguish the fire and received burn injuries in the process. They were taken to Medical College and Hospital, Nagpur. The deceased made a dying declaration (‘DD’) (Exhibit 45) before PSI Sunil Eknadi Wanjari. She succumbed to her injuries at 6.25 A.M. on 29th March, 1999. Prabhabai also made a DD (Exhibit 43) before the PSI Bhila Narayan Bachao (PW5), on the basis of which FIR was lodged at Police Station Imambada. Rajiv Babarao Raut (PW3), Special Judicial Magistrate (SJM) also recorded DD of Prabhabai (Exhibit 41) at 9.30 A.M. on 29 th March, 1999. The said Magistrate also recorded the statement of PW1 Vimalbai (Exhibit 29). Prabhabai died on 1st April, 1999 at 2.2.0 A.M. with 77% burn injuries. The dead bodies were subjected to post mortem.

4. After completion of investigation, the accused was sent up for trial. The prosecution examined PW1, Vimalbai, the land lady, PW2 Purshottam, father of the deceased, PW3 2 Page 2 Criminal Appeal No.1330 of 2009 Rajiv Babarao Raut, SJM, PW 4 PSI Sunil Eknadi Wanjari and PW5 PSI Bhila Narayan Bachao, apart from producing the DDs and other documents. The prosecution mainly relied upon DD made by Prabhabai duly recorded by the SJM, Rajiv Babarao Raut, Exhibit 41. As regards, the DD of deceased Savita Exhibit 45, the trial Court did not place reliance on the same pointing out the infirmities that the said DD did not bear signature or thumb mark of the deceased. There was no evidence of fitness of the deceased to make a statement.

The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Badru Ram & Ors vs State Of Rajasthan

1. This is an appeal by four persons who have been convicted and sentenced under Section 302 read with 149 IPC, each of whom are to suffer life imprisonment and fine of Rs.500/- together with various other lesser offences all of which were ordered to run concurrently. Two persons Kamal Kumar and Om Prakash lost their lives in an incident which took place on 11th November, 1999. 11 persons were charge- sheeted, one of whom, Shiv Lal, died during trial. The learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2 Jhunjhunu convicted the other 10 accused of the murder of Kamal Kumar and Om Prakash and sentenced all of them to life imprisonment. In the judgment impugned in this appeal, six persons were acquitted as they were not named by the star witness Radhey Shyam - PW.3 in the pancha bayan. 4 persons, namely, Badru Ram, Sita Ram, Ramavtar and Lakshman were, however, found guilty by the High Court and were sentenced under Section 302 IPC to life imprisonment.

3. The complainant Radhey Shyam - PW.3, made a complaint on 12th November, 1999 that he was one of four brothers, two of whom were murdered in the incident which took place at 11.15 p.m. on the previous day, i.e., on 11th November, 1999. In his evidence, he stated:

8. The courts below have painstakingly gone through the evidence and have relied heavily upon the evidence of two injured eye witnesses and the Investigating Officer together with the opinion of Dr. J.P. Bugaliya - PW.8 stating that the cause of death was coma as a result of injury to the brain and shock due to internal and external hemorrhage.

11. We find no infirmity in either of the judgments below and confirm them. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
Jivendra Kumar vs Jaidrath Singh & Ors

3. Coming back to the facts of the present appeal, a young woman, namely, Salwinder Kaur was married to the appellant Rajinder Singh sometime in the year 1990. On 31st August, 1993, within four years of the marriage, Salwinder Kaur consumed Aluminium Phosphide, which is a pesticide, as a result of which her young life was snuffed out. On the same day, an FIR was lodged against the husband, his older brother and the older brother's wife. The trial court after examining the evidence of the prosecution and the defence, acquitted the appellant's older brother and his wife but convicted the appellant under Section 304B and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years, which is the minimum sentence that can be pronounced on a finding of guilt under the said Section. This was done after examining in particular the evidence of PW.2 - Karnail Singh, the father of the deceased woman, PW-3 - Gulzar Singh, his elder brother and PW-4 - Balwinder Singh, Sarpanch of the village. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana confirmed the conviction and the sentence vide the impugned judgment.

26. The facts of this appeal are glaring. Demands for money were made shortly after one year of the marriage. A she-buffalo was given by the father to the daughter as a peace offering. The peace offering had no effect. The daughter was ill-treated. She went back to her father and demanded money again. The father, then, went along with his brother and the Sarpanch of the village to the matrimonial home with a request that the daughter be not ill-treated on account of the demand for money. The father also assured the said persons that their money demand would be fulfilled and that they would have to wait till the crops of his field are harvested. Fifteen days before her death, Salwinder Kaur again visited her parents' house on being maltreated by her new family. Then came death by poisoning. The cross-examination of the father of Salwinder Kaur has, in no manner, shaken his evidence. On the facts, therefore, the concurrent findings recorded by both the courts below are upheld. The appeal is dismissed.

25. We hasten to add that this is not a correct reflection of the law. "Soon before" is not synonymous with "immediately before".