L-NLProc/TathyaNyaya-and-FactLegalLlama-NyayaScrape-Datasets huggingface dataset:
Ajay Kr. Ghoshal Etc vs State Of Bihar

2. Briefly stated, case of the prosecution is that on 15.05.2007, Asim Kumar Chatarjee (PW-5) filed a complaint before the Officer-in-Charge, Tilakmanjhi, stating that his sister Bandhavi @ Bani Ghoshal was married to Raj Kumar son of Ajay Kumar Ghoshal on 03.02.2007 and at the time of her marriage, the complainant gave cash and ornaments as per his capacity and all the usual gifts given in a marriage to the accused-appellants. PW-5 asserted that the husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law (Munmun Ghoshal) kept demanding dowry from his deceased sister and upon his inability to fulfill their demands, they in turn tortured Bandhavi Ghoshal mentally and physically. The complainant stated that on 15.05.2007, he received information from Bhagalpur about the death of his sister deceased Bandhavi @ Bani Ghoshal in her matrimonial home, in suspicious circumstances and he went to Bhagalpur. The complainant stated that he saw the dead body of his sister and noticed that her wrist veins were cut and her body had the marks of hanging, assault and electrocution. On the basis of aforesaid, FIR was registered under Section 304 (B), Section 34 IPC at Kotwali (Tilkamanjhi) P.S. Case No.281 of 2007. After completion of investigation, the charge- sheet was filed against the appellants under Sections 302, 304B, 201, 498A, 120B IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

19. In the result, the impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside and these appeals are allowed. The matter is remitted back to the High Court for consideration of the matter afresh. The High Court shall afford sufficient opportunity to the accused-appellants and the prosecution and also to the informant Asim Kumar Chatarjee-brother of the deceased (in terms of Section 301 Cr.P.C.) and proceed with the matter afresh in accordance with law. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter.

January 31, 2017
State Of Haryana & Anr. Etc vs Mohinder Singh & Ors. Etc

2. 195 of such employees preferred writ petitions before the High Court, seeking wages in the regular scale of pay, with effect from the date of their entry into service. All those writ petitions came to be disposed of, by a common order dated 1.4.2013 (or by placing reliance on the said order). The operative part of the above order, is being extracted hereunder:

3. It is further imperative for us to indicate, the basis on which the High Court arrived at the above decision. Accordingly, a relevant part of paragraph 11 of the impugned judgment, wherein the reasons stand recorded, is being extracted hereunder:

9. The majority of the drivers and conductors have expressed their willingness to forgo the arrears in case they are granted the regular pay scale as per Mutual Agreement dated 21.01.2014 and decision of the State Government vide instructions dated 25.6.2014.” (emphasis is ours)

(with appln(s) for impleadment and intervention and exemption from filing official english translation and directions and interim relief and office report) WITH SLP(C) No. 6159-6163/2014 (With appln.(s) for permission to file additional documents and Interim Relief) C.A. No. 8993/2014(with interim Relief) Date : 31/01/2017 These appeals/petitions were called on for hearing today.

CORAM :
Umarmia Alias Mamumia vs State Of Gujarat

The involvement of the Appellant in the crime was set out in detail in the charge-sheet dated 06.06.2005. The Appellant conspired with Iqbal A Hussain and others sent by Mustapha Majnu Sheikh from Mumbai at his residence at Memonwada, Porbandar and finalized the plan to unload the ammunition. It was mentioned, inter alia, that the Appellant was present at the time of delivery of RDX, weapons etc. and he supervised the transport of some weapons to his house. The rest of the material was loaded in three tempos and was sent to Ghanoli village. Thereafter the Appellant fled away to Dubai.

The Appellant will reside at Porbandar and report daily to the City ‘B’ Division Police Station, Porbandar at 6:00 PM. He shall not leave the territory of Porbandar.

The Passport of the Appellant shall be surrendered before the Designated Court.

The Appellant shall not indulge in tampering of evidence and influencing of witnesses.

The State is at liberty to move for cancellation of bail, if the Appellant is found to be tampering with the evidence or causing hindrance to the progress of the trial.

As the case pertains to the year 1993, the Designated Court is requested to expedite and complete the trial at the earliest. With the above directions, the Appeal is allowed.

.........................................J [S. A. BOBDE] ...……................................J [L. NAGESWARA RAO] New Delhi, February 01, 2017
Umarmiya Ismailmiya Saiyed @Mamumiya ... vs State Of Gujarat

The case of the prosecution is that after demolition of the Babri Masjid in the year 1992, a conspiracy was hatched at Dubai for smuggling of contraband goods, arms and explosives to the sea cost of Gosa Bara near Porbandar. Harun Adam Sanghar, Usman Umar Koreja and others were arrested on the basis of information received by the police. On the basis of their statements, FIR was registered in Jamnagar City “B” Division Police Station vide crime register No.151 of 1993. The Appellant masterminded the conspiracy for smuggling a large quantity of arms and ammunition. After supervising the landing of the ammunition, the Appellant absconded and was arrested on 12.01.2005.

The Appellant filed Criminal Misc (Bail) application No. 380 of 2010 on the ground that a prima facie case was not made out against him and prior approval was not taken from the District Superintendent of Police under Section 20A (1) of the Act which vitiated the entire proceedings. The Appellant submitted before the Designated Court that a co-accused Usman Gani Noor Mohamad Merchant alias Munna was granted bail on 13.03.1996 on the ground of violation of Section 20A (1) of the Act, which was confirmed by this Court by an order dated 30.04.1996 in SLP(Crl.) No. 981/96. The Designated Court dismissed the bail application by an order dated 31.08.2010 on the ground that the Appellant was involved in serious offences and his enlargement on bail would be detrimental to the interest of the society.

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, we are of the opinion that the Appellant is entitled to be released on bail only on the ground that the FIR was registered on 16.07.1993 in violation of the procedure prescribed under Section 20A (1) of the TADA Act. There is no dispute about the fact that the Appellant has been in jail for more than 12 years and charges are not framed till date which itself is a ground for bail. (See: Sanghian Pandian Rajkumar v C.B.I (2014)4 SCALE 74; Bal Krishna Pandey Alias Vidur V State of U.P. (2003)12SCC186; Dipak Shubhashchandra Mehta v. CBI, (2012) 4 SCC 134) Taking note of the above and the fact that the Appellant has been granted bail by this court in Criminal Appeal No. 1650 of 2011, we grant relief of bail to the Appellant subject to the following conditions:

The Appellant will reside at Porbandar and report daily to the City ‘B’ Division Police Station, Porbandar at 6:00PM. He shall not leave the territory of Porbandar.

The Appellant shall not indulge in tampering of evidence and influencing of witnesses.

The State is at liberty to move for cancellation of bail, if the Appellant is found to be tampering with the evidence or causing hindrance to the progress of the trial.

The Registry is directed to transmit the record to the Designated Court immediately. The Designated Court is directed to frame charges at the earliest and dispose of the matter expeditiously. With the above directions, the Appeal is allowed.

........................................J [S. A. BOBDE] ..……................................J [L. NAGESWARA RAO] New Delhi, February 01, 2017
State Of H.P. And Ors vs Naval Kumar Alias Rohit Kumar

3) We herein set out the facts, in brief, to appreciate the issue involved in this appeal.

4) On 18.03.2012 at about 3.30 p.m., the respondent-Naval Kumar alias Rohit Kumar, who was 8 years old at the time of incident, accompanied his mother to the fields to collect “Saag” where he got electrocuted with a high tension live wire (11 KV) commonly known as Lahru-Chowari Line. He received grievous burn and other injuries and became unconscious. On the same day, FIR was registered at the instance of the mother of the respondent.

5) The respondent was initially taken to Referal Hospital Chowari for treatment. Thereafter he was referred to Dr. Rajendra Prasad Medical Hospital, Tanda, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh. He was operated on 25.03.2012 and his both arms were amputated. He was admitted in Dr. Rajendra Prasad Medical Hospital, Tanda w.e.f. 18.03.2012 to 03.05.2012. The respondent suffered 100% disability. During the course of hospitalization, the family of the respondent had to incur expenses exceeding Rs.2,00,000/- including medicines, taxi charges, attendant charges, special diet charges etc. The respondent has now become totally dependent upon family members even for day-to-day activities for his entire life. The respondent was throughout brilliant student in his studies and had to discontinue his studies after this unfortunate incident.

18) The award of Rs.90,00,000/- together with interest payable at the rate of 6% p.a., in our view, would fetch sufficient regular monthly income to the respondent by way of interest alone, if the awarded sum is deposited in the Bank and would thus take care of respondent’s upbringing and other needs for the rest of his life. The award of compensation determined by us is just and reasonable compensation payable to the respondent.

19) In view of foregoing discussion, the appeal succeeds and is allowed in part. The impugned order is modified to the extent indicated above by reducing the compensation awarded by the High Court.

20) In other words, the compensation awarded by the High Court is, accordingly, reduced from Rs.1,25,000,00/- to Rs.90,00,000/- with interest payable at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the writ petition.

21) Let the appellant-State deposit the entire amount, as has been awarded by this Court, within 3 months from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment in the High Court or pay to the respondent through his parents after proper verification.

February 02, 2017
State Of Rajasthan vs Fatehkaran Mehdu

3. The brief facts of the case, as emerged from materials on record, need to be noted for deciding the issueS raised in these appeals. Both the appeals having arisen out of First Information Report No. 342/2001 and order dated 05.05.2009 framing charges, the facts being common, it shall be sufficient to refer the facts from Criminal Appeal No.......of 2017 @ SLP(Cr.) No. 3998 of 2011, State of Rajasthan versus Fatehkaran Mehdu.

4. The Respondent, Fatehkaran Mehdu was working as Mining Engineer at Tehsil Bijolia, District Bhilwara, State of Rajasthan in the year 1997-98. One Smt. Sushma Devi had submitted an application for the grant of quarry licence for a mineral (Sand Stone) as per the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as Rule 1986). The application was made for grant of quarry licence for Khatedari land situated at Nayanagar in different plots, including Plot No. 1181/124. She deposited a banker's cheque of Rs. 1,75,000/- dated 23.4.1998 and the quarry licence for 4.95 hectare (30 bigha and 12 biswas) was prepared in the name of Smt. Sushma Devi Dhakad and Shri Manoj Kumar Sandhya on 06.05.1998. On noticing that the quarry licence issued on 06.05.1998 contained various cuttings, she contacted Fatehkaran Mehdu and handed him the licence for issue of fresh licence. Shri Mehdu after taking all papers from Smt. Sushma Devi did not issue her a fresh licence, whereas, Smt. Sushma Devi had started mining operations. On 18.07.1998 one Shri K. K. Boda, inspected the area and stopped the mining activities informing Smt. Sushma Devi that no quarry licence was issued in her favour. On 11.08.1998, Mining Engineer Fatehkaran Mehdu directed Smt. Sushma Devi to stop the mining activities; Fatehkaran Mehdu was transferred in August 1998 out of Tehsil Bigolia.

5. Aggrieved by non-issuance of quarry licence Sushma Devi filed a Writ Petition No. 166 of 1999 before the High Court of Rajasthan which was dismissed by order dated 08.03.1999 due to availability of alternate remedy of filing an appeal under the Rules 1986. Smt. Sushma Devi filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority and Appellate Authority vide order dated 29.04.1999 allowed the appeal and restored the quarry licence of Smt. Sushma Devi.

7. Kishan Singh Rawat alongwith certain other persons had filed a suit against the consenting party of Khatedari Land No. 1238/125 on 23.06.1998 for stopping Sushma Devi from carrying on mining operations. Another suit No. 1181/24 was filed on 13.7.1998 by Kishan Singh against the Khatedars of Plot No. 1181/124 restraining them from interfering in mining operation on Plot No. 1345/1185/124 area 3 bigha.

30. Applying the above tests, we are of the considered opinion that High Court erred in quashing the charges framed by the order dated 05.05.2009. In result, both the appeals are allowed. The order of the High Court is set aside and the order dated 05.05.2009 is restored. The learned Special Judge may proceed with the trial in accordance with the law expeditiously.

........................J (Ranjan Gogoi) ........................J (Ashok Bhushan) New Delhi February 03, 2017
Pukharajmal Sagarmal Lunkad(D)By ... vs The Municipal Council, Jalgaon & Ors

In the above Writ Petitions (Nos. 1924 of 1992 and 1925 of 1992), Town Planning Scheme in respect of survey No. 431/A (new plot No. 287) and survey No. 431/B (new plot No. 288) situated at Mehrun area within the limits of Municipal Council Jalgaon, was sought to be quashed.

In the present case the prayer is made by the appellants in the Writ Petitions specifically in respect of Town Planning Scheme No. III, which was finally sanctioned, as such, we find no error in the impugned judgment passed by the High Court dismissing the Writ Petitions. From the copy of special notice dated 25.04.1980 in form No. 4 issued under Town Planning Scheme Rules (filed as Annexure-B with the additional documents) and copy of order dated 16.05.1980 passed by the Arbitrator in the aforesaid rules, it is clear that the compensation was determined in respect of land in question under Town Planning Scheme. The decision of the Arbitrator appears to have been published in the Official Gazette dated 20th August, 1980, and appeal was dismissed. In the circumstances, we find no error in the order passed by the High Court.

For the reasons as discussed above, we do not find any force in this appeal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. No order as to costs.

February 03, 2017.
Mgr Industries Asso. And Anr vs State Of U P And Ors

3. The brief facts of the case are:

17. In view of the aforegoing discussion, we are of the view that it was rightly held by the High Court that exemption under Article 12-A of the 1976 Act was not available in the facts of the above case. The appellants were not entitled for the reliefs claimed in the writ petition. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.

……………………………………………J [Ranjan Gogoi] ……………………………………………J [Ashok Bhushan] New Delhi February 03, 2017.
Sangita Vilas Ingle vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors

4. The prayers made in the writ petition are as follows:

k.ii. This Hon'ble Court be pleased to quash and set aside the Chargesheet No.15 of 2013 at Annexure F1 and unnumbered and undated Chargesheet arising out of FIR no.3001 of 2013 at Annexure F2, exercising the inherent power of this Hon'ble Court provided under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code.

6. Accordingly, we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment. The writ petition is remanded to the High Court and we request the High Court to take up the writ petition expeditiously, consider and dispose of the same on merits, preferably within a period of one year.

February 6, 2017.
Durga Prasad vs Narayan Ram Chandaani (D) Thr. Lr

2. Brief facts which led to filing of these appeals are as under :

Lalita passed away and Durga Prasad, who has been substituted is not a member of the ‘family’ and that he has not been able to prove that he was previously residing with his sister Lalita in the said premises. On those findings the appellate court set aside the order of the prescribed authority and allowed the appeal. Thereafter the appellant-tenant preferred a writ petition before the High Court which was dismissed vide the impugned order dated 09.03.2015, holding that the appellant does not come within the definition of ‘family’ as per Section 3(g) of U.P. Act XIII of 1972. The High Court further held that vacancy was liable to be declared on the demised premises, on the death of sole tenant– Lalita, the review application filed by the appellant also came to be dismissed vide order dated 31.08.2015. Both the orders are impugned in these appeals.

17. Upon appreciation of the facts and evidence, the first appellate court and the High Court rightly held that the appellant is neither an ‘heir’ as visualized under Section 3(a) of the U.P. Act XIII of 1972 nor ‘family’ within the meaning of Section 3(g) of the Act and that the appellant is in unauthorized occupation of the suit premises and is liable to be evicted. The High Court has directed the District Magistrate to pass appropriate orders under Section 16 of the U.P. Act XIII of 1972 on the release application of the landlord without further delay preferably within three weeks from the date of judgment of the High Court that is 09.03.2015. Father-in-law of Lalita had taken the suit premises on rent in the year 1940. In the facts and circumstances of the case, without relegating the matter to the District Magistrate to pass orders on the release application of the respondent-landlord, we deem it appropriate to direct the appellant to hand over vacant possession to the respondent-landlord.

18. In the result, the appeals are dismissed. We direct the appellant to hand over the vacant possession of the suit premises to the respondent- landlord within four weeks from the date of this order failing which the appellant shall be liable for contempt of this Court.

February 07, 2017.
Reena Suresh Alhat vs State Of Maharashtra And Anr

Reena Suresh Alhat’s nomination was rejected by an order dated 4.2.2017. She challenged the rejection of her nomination by a writ petition. The writ petition was dismissed by the High Court by an order under challenge dated 7.2.2017 on the twin grounds of a constitutional bar and the existence of an alternative remedy.

In the case of Reshma Anil Bhosale, the dispute is regarding the allotment of a symbol. The petitioner claimed to be a candidate sponsored by the Bharatiya Janata Party. The said symbol was allotted to the petitioner by an order of the respondent dated 8.2.2017. One of the contesting candidates questioned the allotment of the election symbol of BJP by filing a writ petition. Rule nisi was issued and by an interim order of the High Court, the order of the Election Commission allotting the symbol in favour of Reshma Anil Bhosale was stayed.

The petitioners would still have a forum for adjudication of their respective rights and granting appropriate relief if they can successfully establish the infringement of their legal rights.

We are only reminded of a caution given by Justice Frankfurter in Rogers v. Missouri Pacific Railroad Co., 353 U.S. 500, 521 : 77 S. Ct. 443, 459 “The Court may or may not be “doing justice” in the four insignificant cases it decides today; it certainly is doing injustice to the significant and important cases on the calendar and to its own role as the supreme judicial body of the country.” … “Unless the Court vigorously enforces its own criteria for granting review of cases, it will inevitably face an accumulation of arrears or will dispose of its essential business in too hurried and therefore too shallow a way.” We regret our inability to examine the issues involved in these two cases. Special Leave Petitions are dismissed.
Orissa Industrial Infra.Dev. ... vs M/S Mesco Kalinga Steel Ltd. & Ors

5. On 27.10.1997, IDCO requested Mesco to submit draft deed of lease agreement for execution within 15 days, failing which steps will be taken for cancellation of allotment and resumption of land. IDCO again requested on 26.11.1997 to submit the draft deed of agreement for execution. However Mesco kept quiet and failed to get the lease deed executed. Thereafter, for more than 5 ½ years nothing happened. No steps were taken by Mesco to get the lease deed executed. Thereafter, IDCO gave final notice to Mesco on 4.7.2003 to deposit the balance defaulted amount of Rs.22.44 crores along with statutory dues and to execute the lease deed by 19.7.2003 failing which it was intimated that the said land shall be resumed at their cost and the amount paid shall be adjusted towards compensation for use and occupation of the land; apart from that, Mesco shall also be liable for damages. Ultimately on 25.7.2003 on failure to get the lease deed executed, land was resumed and possession letter of 1756.29 acres of land was cancelled by IDCO. The amount of Rs.1.25 crores deposited by Mesco was forfeited and adjusted towards compensation for use and occupation of the land and damages.

7. A representation was submitted by Mesco on 20.8.2003 questioning resumption in which Mesco submitted its own terms and conditions for payment. The said representation was rejected on 26.9.2003 by IDCO. The first round of litigation in the form of W.P. (C) No.12857/2003 was filed by Mesco questioning the cancellation and resumption of land. The High Court disposed of the said writ petition on 15.1.2004. Pursuant thereto, representation dated 20.1.2004 submitted to IDCO had been rejected on 25.2.2004. Thereafter, in the second round of litigation, W.P. (C) No.2453/2005, during its pendency, Mesco came up with another representation dated 22.8.2005 to IDCO which was rejected on 7.10.2005 on the ground that it was highly unsatisfactory, unconvincing and completely unacceptable. Mesco amended the writ petition to question the rejection order dated 7.10.2005. On 11.4.2007 and 12.4.2007, the High Court again asked IDCO whether it was willing to lease out the remaining land to Mesco. As IDCO was unable to do so, the High Court allowed the writ application to lease out 825.68 acres of land. Aggrieved thereby, the appellants are before us.

24. Resultantly, the impugned order passed by the High Court is hereby set aside. The appeals are allowed. The writ petition stands dismissed. Cost of Rs.5 lakhs is directed to be paid by Mesco to IDCO within a period of two months from today.