L-NLProc/TathyaNyaya-and-FactLegalLlama-NyayaScrape-Datasets huggingface dataset:
Bijender Singh vs State Of Haryana

2. Tragic case of a double murder of Ram Kishan and Rattan Singh (“the deceased” for short) on 04.12.1996. The dispute between the accused persons and the injured and deceased persons pertained to a piece of land in village Gurwari. The Prosecution story, as noticed by the High Court, is as under:

4. The FIR was registered based on the statement of Lachhman Singh (PW-

18. In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that both the Courts below have not committed any error, insofar as convicting the appellants. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed.

19. If any of the appellants are released on bail during the pendency of these appeals, their bail bonds are cancelled and they are directed to surrender forthwith to undergo their respective sentences.

Ordered accordingly.

FEBRUARY 21, 2013.
M/S Bagai Construction Tr.Prop vs M/S Gupta Building Material Store

decoration and construction work and Mr. Lalit Bagai is the sole proprietor of the said concern. The respondent is a partnership firm registered with the Registrar of Firms vide Registration No. 1237/93 dated 07.06.1993 and is engaged in the business of sale and supply of building materials.

(b) Admittedly, the appellant and respondent have often transacted with each other. According to the respondent, the appellant made various purchases on credit from them for which payments were made in parts and the same were credited to his account maintained by them. It is alleged by the respondent that after adjusting all the payments being made by the appellant, an amount of Rs.4,35,250.18 is due against his firm. Despite repeated demands, requests, and reminders, the appellant has not cleared the outstanding amount. Therefore, the respondent sent legal notice dated 11.04.2005 to the appellant through his counsel calling upon him to pay the outstanding dues along with interest @ 2% per month. Despite notice, the appellant did not pay any amount, therefore, the respondent instituted a suit against him for recovery of sum of Rs.4,35,250.18 along with interest accrued thereon. After the arguments were concluded in the suit on 27.10.2009, the matter was adjourned for judgment on 03.11.2009.

14) The appeal is allowed with no order as to costs.

FEBRUARY 22, 2013.
G.M.Siddeshwar vs Prasanna Kumar

The facts:

Signature of the Deponent Solemnly affirmed/sworn to by Sri Prasanna Kumar at Bangalore, this the 18th day of June 2009.

sworn to before me”

47. The issue having been considered several times by this Court must now be allowed to rest at that.

What is an election petition:

59. It was held that where the averments are too compendious for being included in an election petition, they may be set out in the schedules or annexures to the election petition. In such an event, these schedules or annexures would be an integral part of the election petition and must, therefore, be served on the respondents. This is quite distinct from documents which may be annexed to the election petition by way of evidence and so do not form an integral part of the averments of the election petition and may not, therefore, be served on the respondents.

62. It was further laid down that even though a defective affidavit may not be fatal to the maintainability of an election petition, the High Court should ensure compliance before the parties go to trial so that the returned candidate can meet the allegations and is not taken by surprise at the trial.

Conclusion:

67. There is no merit in these appeals and they are, accordingly dismissed, but without any costs.

(MADAN B. LOKUR) New Delhi, March 08, 2013
Gambhirsinh R.Dekare vs Falgunbhai Chimanbhai Patel & Anr

The petitioner Gambhirsinh R. Dekare, at the relevant point of time was serving as Taluka Mamlatdar and an Executive Magistrate in Vadodara Taluka in the State of Gujarat. A Gujarati daily newspaper “Sandesh” is published from different places i.e., Surat, Valsad, Bharuch, Vadodara and other cities of India. Navinbhai Chauhan is the Resident Editor of Vadodara edition of “Sandesh” whereas Falgunbhai Chimanbhai Patel is the Editor of “Sandesh”. The newspaper published a news item in its Vadodara issue dated 28.09.1999 that the petitioner “is in love and keeping illicit relations with the wife of a doctor at Ajwa Road with the following headlines:

2 would amount to miscarriage of justice and, accordingly, quashed the complaint and the process issued against him.

Thus the impugned judgment of the High Court is indefensible both on facts and law. Any observation made by us in this judgment is for the decision in this case. It does not reflect on the merit of the allegation, which obviously is a matter of trial.

In the result, the appeal is allowed, the impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside and the court in seisin of the case shall now proceed with the trial in accordance with law.
Modinsab Kasimsab Kanchagar vs State Of Karnataka & Anr

2. The facts very briefly are:

2.3 At the trial, mother of the deceased was examined as P.W. 2 and two of her uncles were examined as P.W. 3 and P. W. 4 and besides them four other witnesses were examined as P.Ws. 5, 7, 10 and 12, who all deposed about the demand of ` 1,000/- cash and one tola of gold as well as demand of `10,000/- and about the fact that `1,000/- cash and one tola of gold were actually given to the appellant at the time of marriage and also about the fact that out of the demand of `10,000/- made after the marriage, `2,000/- was paid but the balance of `8,000/- could not be paid because of which the deceased was harassed and she committed suicide. Nonetheless, the trial court acquitted the appellant of the charges by its judgment dated 2nd December, 1999.

8. We are, however, of the view that the appellant was liable for the offence under Section 498A IPC. Section 498A read with Explanation (b) thereto provides that if a husband of a woman subjects the woman to harassment with a view to coerce her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for property or valuable security he shall be liable with punishment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. The demand of ` 10,000/- towards the society loan made by the appellant, thus, may not be a demand in connection with dowry but is certainly an unlawful demand for a property or valuable security and there is clear evidence of the prosecution to show that the deceased was subjected to harassment by the appellant on account of her failure to meet the aforesaid demand of ` 10,000/-.

11. In the result, we set aside the conviction of the appellant under Section 304B IPC and the sentence thereunder but maintain the conviction of the appellant under Section 498A IPC and under the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. We maintain the sentence of six months' imprisonment awarded to the appellant under the Dowry Prohibition Act for each of the offences under the said Act and award sentence of approximately two years which the appellant is stated to have already undergone for the offence under Sections 498A IPC and further direct that the sentences under Section 498A IPC as well as the offences under the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 will run concurrently.

12. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. The bail bonds stand discharged.
State Of Rajasthan & Ors vs Hindustan Zinc Ltd. & Anr

2. As both the appeals arise from a common judgment, at the request of the learned counsel, both the appeals were heard together. So far as the appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan, viz. Civil Appeal No. 1494 of 2008 is concerned, it mainly challenges the impugned judgment on the ground that by virtue of methodology directed to be employed in the said judgment, the State would suffer substantial loss as the lessee company, viz. Hindustan Zinc Limited would be paying much less royalty than what it is supposed to pay.

Provided that in case so dumped tailings or rejects are used for sale or consumption on any later date after the date of such dumping, then, such tailings or rejects shall be liable for payment of royalty.”

33. For the afore-stated reasons, in our opinion, we need not refer to the submissions made in relation to the forms referred to in the Rules.

35. For the afore-stated reasons, we do not find any substance in the appeal and therefore, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1526 OF 2008

37. The appellant-company is aggrieved by the afore-stated direction because it was never prayed by the State that the matter be remitted back to the mining engineer for re-computation of the royalty.

39. We find substance in what has been submitted because the metal concentrate which had been taken out from the leased area is known to the parties and therefore, it is not necessary to have any further details regarding the ore produced by the appellant- company.

40. We, therefore, quash the afore-stated direction and the appeal filed by the appellant-company is allowed to the above effect with no order as to costs.
Joseph Johan Peter Sandy vs Veronica Thomas Rajkumar & Anr

2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to these appeals are:

B. It is alleged by the appellant that the father of the parties had only at a later point of time realised that the House No. 23 which was given to the daughter, ought to have been given to him and House No. 22 to the daughter. Thus, the parties to give effect to the real intention of their father decided to exchange the properties given to them, and in furtherance thereof, executed a Agreement Deed to exchange the same on 1.6.1982. The said document was witnessed by Sheila Doss and Mrs. Mary Doss, who were neighbours and teachers and colleagues of the daughter – respondent no.1. Since, the said agreement dated 1.6.1982 (Ex.A-3) had not been given effect to by the respondent no.1, the appellant filed O.S.No. 6331 of 1983 on 12.9.1983 in the court of City Civil Judge, Chennai, for issuance of direction to the defendant/respondent no.1, to execute a Deed of Rectification and further to restrain her from interference with the appellant’s possession of the suit property. During the pendency of this suit, Shri B.P. Sandy and the appellant executed a Rectification Deed (Ex.A-

C. The trial court decided both the suits together vide judgment and decree dated 21.8.1986 by way of which the appellant’s suit was decreed and that of respondent no.1 was dismissed.

27. In view of the above, we reached the following inescapable conclusions:

viii) Considering the respective area of the properties bearing nos.22 and 23, the contract can definitely be held “unconscionable”.

28. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that appeals are devoid of any merit. The same are accordingly dismissed. No costs.

CIVIL APPEAL NOs. 2184-2185 OF 2004 These appeals are squarely covered by the aforesaid decision in the main matters i.e. C.A No. 2178-2179 of 2004. The same are, accordingly, dismissed.
Ramswaroop & Anr vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

2) Brief facts:

(h) By impugned judgment and order dated 25.08.2005, the High Court confirmed the conviction and sentence of accused Ramswaroop and Chintu Mahte (appellants herein) under all the charges. The appeal in respect of accused Badri was abated due to his death during the pendency of the appeal. The High Court set aside the conviction of rest of the appellants therein, namely, Ramjilal, Roshan Lal and Brij Mohan under Section 302 read with Section 149 of IPC while affirming the conviction under Sections 148, 452 and 325 read with Section 149 of IPC and modified the sentence to the period already undergone.

5) Since the present appeal relates to Ramswaroop and Chintu Mahte (appellants herein), there is no need to traverse the role of all the other accused. There is no serious dispute about unlawful assembly by the accused persons and initial incident of causing damage of crops by the cows of the complainant. It is also clear from the materials placed by the prosecution that after the altercation in the field, all the accused armed with lathis and weapons in their hands chased the deceased and entered into his house.

13) Under these circumstances, there is no merit in the appeal, on the other hand, we fully agree with the conclusion arrived at by the High Court. Consequently, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed.

MARCH 12, 2013.
Garre Mallikharjuna Rao (D)By Lrs.& Ors vs Nalabothu Punniah

2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are:

6. Whatever may be the legal position involved in this case, the facts as pleaded and proved before the courts below, are far from being satisfactory. The respondent/plaintiff who has examined himself as PW-1 has raised mutually inconsistent pleas, as is evident from the pleadings in the plaint wherein he had stated that it has been agreed that the sale deed would be executed within a period of 4 months, however, in his deposition, he has stated that the sale deeds were agreed to be executed only after the expiry of the term of the lease. The agreement to sell has been transcribed on the non-judicial stamp paper, though not registered. Admittedly, the said stamp paper had been purchased 11 months prior to the date mentioned in the agreement for sale. More so, it had been purchased from a different place. Further, there is nothing on record to show as in whose name, the non- judicial stamp paper had been purchased and who had purchased it.

In view of the above, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The impugned judgment is hereby set aside. The judgment and decree of the Trial Court is restored i.e. the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff is dismissed. No costs.
Bharat Bhushan & Anr vs State Of M.P

2. On 12th February, 2007, this Court dismissed the petition for special leave to appeal qua petitions Nos. 1 and 3 and issued notice confined to appellant nos. 2 and 4 and on 18th October, 2007, this Court had also granted bail to the said two appellants. Hence this appeal is confined to the appeal of appellant Nos. 2 and 4.

3. The facts very briefly are that Madhuri got married to appellant No. 1 at Jabalpur on 10th June, 2003 and she came to the house of her parents on 5th August, 2003. In the house of her parents, she committed suicide by hanging to the ceiling on 17th August, 2003. The father of the deceased lodged a report with the Police on 17th August, 2003, saying that he had brought his daughter to the house on 5th August, 2003 and she was not sent back to her in- laws' house on account of the illness of his wife and she committed suicide. The Police investigated the case and filed a charge sheet against the appellants under Section 304B and 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The trial court convicted the appellants and the High Court has maintained the conviction.

9. In the result, we allow this appeal of appellant Nos. 2 and 4 and set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court as well as the judgment of the trial court and direct that the bail bonds furnished by appellant nos. 2 and 4 will stand discharged.
New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs Prabha Devi & Ors

In view of the order that we propose to make, we shall notice the facts only from Civil appeal No. 479 of 2007.

Puran Singh, deceased had taken an insurance policy on 29th June, 1994 in respect of his vehicle bearing registration No. UP-01-1489 for the period 29.6.1994 to 28.6.1995. The relevant clause in the policy on the basis of which the Insurance Company denies its liability is as under :-

electrical accessories” appear. It is thus clear that this premium is towards damage to the vehicle and not for injury to the person of the owner. An owner of a vehicle can only claim provided a personal accident insurance has been taken out. In this case there is no such insurance.” In view of the aforesaid ratio of law, the claim made by the respondents could not have been allowed. Consequently, Civil Appeal No. 479 of 2007 is allowed. The impugned Award as well as the impugned judgment of the High Court are set aside.

In this appeal the respondents had claimed interest on Rs.3,20,000/- i.e. the amount awarded. The High court, by the impugned order, granted 6% interest from the date of filing of the claim petition till payment.

In view of the order passed in Civil Appeal No. 479 of 2007, no orders are required to be passed in this appeal as it is rendered infructuous. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

CORAM :
Jitendra Raghuvanshi & Ors vs Babita Raghuvanshi & Anr

4) Brief facts:

14) In the light of the above discussion, we hold that the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash the criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint in appropriate cases in order to meet the ends of justice and Section 320 of the Code does not limit or affect the powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code. Under these circumstances, we set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court dated 04.07.2012 passed in M.CR.C. No. 2877 of 2012 and quash the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 4166 of 2011 pending on the file of Judicial Magistrate Class-I, Indore.

15) The appeal is allowed.

MARCH 15, 2013.
Kamlendra Singh @ Pappu Singh vs State Of M.P

2. The appellant, along with two others, were charge sheeted for offences punishable under Sections 341, 294, 307 read with Section 34 IPC for conspiring to murder of one Atul Mishra on 27.8.1993 in Rewa at Allahabad Road, near Kalewa Hotel. For the said purpose, the appellant accused gave a country made pistol to the accused Raj Kumar Singh and exhorted him to shoot Atul Mishra. Raj Kumar Singh fired at Atul Mishra with the said country made pistol and he succumbed to his injuries.

7. Going by those documents, evidently, the date of birth of the appellant is 25.2.1977. If that be so, the appellant was a juvenile on the date of the incident. We have extensively examined the provisions of the Juvenile of Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 in Ashwani Kumar Saxena v. State of M.P. (2012) 9 SCC 750 and we are of the view that the principle laid down in the above judgment squarely applies to the facts of the present case. Under such circumstances, we are inclined to set aside the sentence awarded by the trial Court, confirmed by the High Court and the case records are directed to be placed before the concerned Juvenile Justice Board for awarding the appropriate sentence. Ordered accordingly.

8. The appeal is allowed as above.
Shivdev Kaur (D) By Lrs. & Ors vs R.S. Grewal

D. Aggrieved, both parties filed appeals and cross-objections. The appellate court dismissed the appeal filed by the respondent on 22.10.1981. On the same day, appeal filed by the appellant was allowed to certain extent. However, so far as the issue relating to conversion of the life interest into absolute title was decided against the appellant.

F. The appellant executed a Will dated 28.2.1991 in respect of the suit property creating a trust in the name of her father and appointing Shri Sudarshan Singh Deol and Brig Inderjeet Singh Dhillon as the trustees. She further made Codicil dated 25.8.1995. The appellant died on 15.2.1998 and thus executors of her Will got impleaded.

G. The High Court allowed both the RSAs filed by the respondent and dismissed the claim of the appellant.

3. Shri Devender Mohan Verma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, has argued that the appellant had become a widow at a very young age. She was maintained by her in laws, thus, her father took pity on her and as she was a destitute, brought her back and created a “life interest” in her favour in respect of the suit property by executing a Will dated 16.9.1944. She started residing in the suit property. Her father died in 1945. After commencement of the Act 1956, right of “life interest” stood crystallised into absolute right and title. Therefore, the courts below erred in deciding the issue against her. Thus, the appeals deserve to be allowed.

4. Per contra, Shri R.K. Dhawan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, has opposed the appeals contending that the appellant cannot be permitted to introduce a new case that the appellant was a destitute. She was a well qualified person and MBBS doctor. She had acquired large properties from the family of her late husband. More so, father of the appellant had created only “life interest” in her favour in the suit property by executing the Will. Section 14(2) of the Act 1956 does not provide that such “life interest” would stand converted into absolute ownership on commencement of the said Act. There are concurrent findings of facts on this issue and, thus, the appeals lack merit and are liable to be dismissed.

15. All the courts have taken a consistent view rejecting the claim of the appellant of having acquired an absolute title. We do not see any cogent reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of facts. Appeals lack merit and are accordingly dismissed.
M/S Deep Trading Company vs M/S Indian Oil Corporation & Ors

3. The above questions arise from these facts : On 01.11.1998, an agreement for kerosene/LDO dealership was entered into between the first respondent – Indian Oil Corporation (for short, “the Corporation”) and the appellant – Deep Trading Company (for short, “the dealer”) for the retail sales supply of kerosene and light diesel oil in the area specified in the schedule. In the course of dealership agreement allegedly some violations were committed by the dealer. Following the show cause notice dated 04.03.2004, the Corporation on 12.03.2004 suspended the sales and supplies of all the products to the dealer with immediate effect.

7. It appears that the Corporation challenged the order of the Allahabad High Court in the special leave petition before this Court but that was dismissed on 06.12.2004 being an interlocutory order.

24. In the course of arguments before us, on behalf of the appellant certain names of retired High Court Judges were indicated to the senior counsel for the Corporation for appointment as sole arbitrator but the Corporation did not agree to any of the names proposed by the appellant. In the circumstances, we are left with no choice but to send the matter back to the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court for an appropriate order on the application made by the dealer under Section 11(6).

25. Civil Appeal is, accordingly, allowed. The impugned order is set aside. Arbitration Case No. 107 of 2004, M/s. Deep Trading Company v. M/s. Indian Oil Corporation and others, is restored to the file of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad for fresh consideration by the Chief Justice or the designate Judge, as the case may be, in accordance with law and in light of the observations made above. No costs.
Narinder Singh Rao vs Avm Mahinder Singh Rao & Ors

2. The facts giving rise to the appeals in a nutshell are as under:

3. After the death of Sumitra Devi, her four children, one of them being the present respondent No.1, filed a suit for declaration claiming their right in the suit property. Subsequently, the plaint was amended so as to make it a suit for partition. According to the case of the said children, the Will was not genuine and therefore, the said Will could not have been acted upon and as Sumitra Devi was survived by eight children, the suit property would be inherited by all the children. Thus, each child had 1/8th share in the suit property.

5. The said suit was dismissed and therefore, the original plaintiffs, along with others, preferred an appeal. After hearing the learned advocates and considering the facts of the case, the lower appellate court dismissed the said appeal though allowed the appeal on the question of court fee.

17. As we have come to the conclusion that the Will executed by Sumitra Devi was just and proper, the consequences of the Will would be like this:

20. In view of the findings of fact arrived at by the courts below and the legal position clarified hereinabove and by the High Court, in our opinion, the High Court has committed no error and therefore, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment.

21. For the aforestated reasons, the appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs.