L-NLProc/TathyaNyaya-and-FactLegalLlama-NyayaScrape-Datasets huggingface dataset:
Shabnam vs Union Of India And Anr

Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 88 of 2015 is filed by Shabnam and Writ Petition (Criminal) 89 of 2015 is filed by National Law University, Delhi, espousing the cause of Salim. Both Shabnam and Salim (hereinafter referred to as, “the convicts”) were co-accused in a murder case, that was tried against them on the allegations that they had committed murders of seven persons who were the members of Shabnam's family during the intervening night of 14th and 15th April, 2008. They were tried together and after the trial, the learned Sessions Court returned with the finding holding them guilty of the said murders, for which they were charged and pronounced death sentence on both these convicts vide Judgment and Sentence dated 15.07.2010, subject to confirmation by the High Court.

The High Court of Allahabad confirmed the death sentence of both the convicts vide Judgment and order dated 26.04.2013. The Judgment of the High Court was challenged in this Court and on 15.05.2015, the appeals of the convicts were dismissed by this Court as well, thereby confirming the conviction as well as sentence of death imposed on them.

31. We are of the opinion that “reasonable procedure” would encompass oral hearing of review petitions arising out of death penalties. The statement of Justice Holmes, that the life of law is not logic; it is experience, aptly applies here.

We make the Rule absolute. These writ petitions are allowed in the aforesaid terms.

MAY 27, 2015.
Bijendra Bhagat vs State Of Uttarakhand

2. According to the prosecution, on 21.10.1999 at about 6.30 pm there was a quarrel between the children of PW2 Surat Singh and the appellant. Thereafter in the intervening night of 21st and 22nd October, 1999, the appellant armed with a lathi, accused Raman @ Babloo and Randhawa @ Billoo both armed with Tabals (heavy sharp edged weapon) and country made pistols came to the house of PW2 Surat Singh and dragged his son Rakesh from the house and started assaulting. The inmates of the house, namely, PW1 Sanjay Kumar, his father PW2 Surat Singh and mother Attar Kali came forward to save said Rakesh. Rakesh suffered eight injuries out of which seven were incised wounds and the eighth injury was caused by a fire arm. Attar Kali received four injuries, all of them being incised wounds. PW1 Sanjay Kumar received three injuries, two of them being lacerated wounds and the third was an abrasion.

3. Accepting the case of the prosecution, the trial court convicted all the accused under Section 302/34 IPC and sentenced them to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, under Section 324/34 IPC to suffer RI for one year and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- and under Section 452 IPC to suffer RI for one year and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-. The conviction and sentence so recorded by the trial court was affirmed by the High Court in appeal. The appellant and his sons Raman @ Babloo and Randhawa @ Billoo preferred special leave petitions in this Court challenging their conviction and sentence. This Court found no merit insofar as the petitions preferred by Raman @ Babloo and Randhawa @ Billoo are concerned and their petitions were dismissed on 16.08.2011. However, insofar as the appellant is concerned, special leave to appeal was granted. By subsequent order, considering the age of the appellant and the fact that he had remained in jail for about three years, this Court released him on bail. In this appeal arising thus, we have heard learned counsel and gone through the record.

4. The prosecution witnesses are consistent in their version that Raman @ Babloo and Randhawa @ Billoo were armed with Tabals with which the injuries were inflicted upon Rakesh and Attar Kali. According to the witnesses these two accused were also armed with country made pistols. The injuries suffered by the deceased are incised wounds and one fire arm injury. However, none of the injuries on the person of the deceased could be attributed to the lathi which was supposedly in the hands of the appellant. Undoubtedly, three injuries on the person of Sanjay Kumar could be caused by a hard and blunt object. But having gone through the testimony of the witnesses and the other material on record, the presence of the appellant and his involvement in the incident clearly appears to be doubtful. We, therefore, deem it appropriate to give the appellant benefit of doubt. We, therefore, acquit him of all the charges and set aside the judgment and order under appeal insofar as the appellant is concerned. The appellant is already on bail. His bail bonds are discharged. The appeal is allowed in above terms.
Indian Performing Rights Society Ltd vs Sanjay Dalia & Anr

4. Civil Suit FAO (OS) No. 359/2007 has been filed in the High Court at Delhi, by virtue of the fact that the Branch Office of the plaintiff is situated at Delhi and the plaintiff is carrying on the business at Delhi. However, it is not disputed that the plaintiff’s Head Office is situated at Mumbai. The objection was raised by the defendant with regard to the territorial jurisdiction of the court at Delhi. The single Bench and the Division Bench of the High Court have upheld the objection and held that the suit should have been filed in the facts of the case, in the court at Mumbai. Hence, the impugned order has been questioned in the appeals.

5. In Civil Appeal arising out of SLP [C] No. 8253/2013 – (Advance Magazine Publishers Inc. & Anr. v. Just Lifestyle Pvt. Ltd.), the suit has been filed with respect to the infringement of the trademark. The registered office of “Vogue India” is in Mumbai. The magazine is processed and published in Mumbai. It was submitted that because the plaintiff has branch office at Delhi, it had sufficient ground for invoking the jurisdiction under section 134 of the Trade Marks Act. The plaintiff filed an application seeking an amendment in the plaint under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure so as to indicate how the court at Delhi would have the jurisdiction. The magazine is sold and circulated to the subscribers at Delhi. The application seeking amendment has also been dismissed by the High Court as even if allowed, amended pleadings would not confer jurisdiction upon the court. Merely situation of branch office is not enough as no cause of action as per the plaint, has arisen in Delhi. The Division Bench has allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by the Single Bench, allowing the amendment. The said order has been impugned in SLP [C] No.8253/2013.

x x x x x

x x x x x

45. It was also submitted that as the bulk of litigation of such a nature is filed at Delhi and lawyers available at Delhi are having expertise in the matter, as such it would be convenient to the parties to contest the suit at Delhi. Such aspects are irrelevant for deciding the territorial jurisdiction. It is not the convenience of the lawyers or their expertise which makes out the territorial jurisdiction. Thus, the submission is unhesitatingly rejected.

46. It was also submitted that the suit may be ordered to be transferred to Delhi. We cannot order transfer of suit in these proceedings. In case parties so desire, they are free to file appropriate application but the suit is required to be presented in the court of competent jurisdiction only thereafter the question of transfer would be germane.
State Of M.P vs Madanlal

2. The factual narration for disposal of the present appeal lies in a narrow compass. The respondent as accused was sent up for trial for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(f) IPC before the learned Sessions Judge. The case of the prosecution before the Court below was that on 27.12.2008, the victim, aged about 7 years, PW1, was proceeding towards Haar from her home and on the way the accused, Madan Lal, met her and came to know that she was going in search of her mother who had gone to graze the goats. The accused told her that her mother had gone towards the river and accordingly took her near the river Parvati, removed her undergarment and made her sit on his lap, and at that time the prosecutrix shouted. As the prosecution story proceeds, he discharged on her private parts as well as on the stomach and washed the same. Upon hearing the cry of the prosecutrix, her mother, Ramnali Bai, PW2, reached the spot, and then accused took to his heels. The prosecutrix narrated the entire incident to her mother which led to lodging of an FIR by the mother of the prosecutrix. On the basis of the FIR lodged, criminal law was set in motion, and thereafter the investigating agency examined number of witnesses, seized the clothes of the respondent-accused, sent certain articles for examination to the forensic laboratory and eventually after completing the examination, laid the chargesheet before the concerned court, which in turn, committed the matter to the Court of Session.

3. The accused abjured his guilt and pleaded false implication. The learned trial Judge, regard being had to the material brought on record, framed the charge under Section 376(2)(f) read with Section 511 of IPC. The prosecution, in order to bring home the charge leveled against the accused examined the prosecutrix, PW1, Ramnali Bai, PW2, Dr. Smt. Sharda Bhola, PW3, Head Constable Babu Singh, PW4, ASI B.R.S. Raghuwanshi, PW5, and Dr. Milind Bhagat, PW6, and also got marked nine documents as exhibits. The defence chose not to adduce any evidence.

6. The High Court, as is manifest, has converted the offence to one under 354 IPC and confined the sentence to the period of custody already undergone.

The consequence of such remand is that the order of the High Court stands lancinated and as the respondent was in custody at the time of the pronouncement of the judgment by the trial Court, he shall be taken into custody forthwith by the concerned Superintendent of Police and thereafter the appeal before the High Court be heard afresh. A copy of judgment be sent to the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Gwalior.

21. The appeal stands allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove.
State Of Rajasthan And Ors vs Mahendra Nath Sharma

3. As the factual matrix would unfurl, the Government of Rajasthan vide Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay Scale for Government College Teachers including Librarians, PTIs) Rules, 1999, (for short, “the 1999 Rules”) revised the pay scales of Government College Teachers/Librarians w.e.f. 1.1.1996. The Schedule appended to the said Rule mentioned the post of Lecturer (Ordinary Scale), Lecturer (Senior Scale) and Lecturer (Selection Scale) showing the existing revised pay scale as against the said post, as a result of which the respondents who retired prior to the year 1996 or for that matter in the year 1999 were granted revised pension on the basis of the revised pay scale w.e.f. 1.1.1996 meant for the grade of Lecturer (Selection Scale).

and that it had also recommended for bifurcation of pay scales of Lecturers (selection scale) into two, namely, Rs. 15600-39100 with AGP of Rs.8000/- for those lecturers (selection scale), who have not completed 3 years of service in the existing pay scale as on 01.01.2006 and the pay scale of Rs.37400-67000 with AGP of Rs.9000/- for all those, who had completed 3 years service in the existing pay scale as on 01.01.2006 and onwards, subject to the guidelines issued in this regard.

19. Paragraph 5 requires to be scrutinised and on such a scrutiny it becomes graphically clear that pension of a pre-1.9.2006 pensioner shall not be lower than 50% of sum of the minimum of post in the running pay band plus grade pay introduced w.e.f. 1.9.2006 corresponding to the pre-revised scale of the post. If the pay scale is taken into consideration, the corresponding pay revision would be Rs.37400-67000 with Rs.9000 AGP. The only qualifier is three years service in that scale. There is no scintilla of doubt that all the respondents meet that criteria. It is a well known principle that pension is not a bounty. The benefit is conferred upon an employee for his unblemished career. In D.S. Nakara v. Union of India[2], D.A. Desai, J. speaking for the Bench opined that:-

22. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we do not perceive any merit in this batch of appeals and accordingly, the same stands dismissed. The benefit shall be extended to the respondents within a span of three months from today failing which the accrued sum shall carry interest @ 9% per annum till realisation. There shall be no order as to costs.

[1] LPA No. 1955 of 2012 decided on 14.1.2013.
U.O.I. And Ors vs Keshar Singh

5. As the facts of Civil Appeal No. 731 of 2007 corresponding to I.T.A. No. 239 of 2001 has been considered in detail by the High Court and the view expressed in the said proceeding have been followed in all the other appeals before the High Court, it may be necessary to notice in detail the said facts arising in the appeal in question.

6. The appellant-ONGC and a non resident/foreign company one M/s. Foramer France had entered into an agreement by which the non-resident company had agreed to make available supervisory staff and personnel having experience and expertise for operation and management of drilling rigs Sagar Jyoti and Sagar Pragati for the assessment year 1985-86 and the drilling rig Sagar Ratna for the assessment year 1986-87. Faced with the different views taken by the authorities under the Act, as mentioned above, the High Court proceeded to analyse the different clauses of the contract between the parties. A consideration of such analysis made by the High Court would go to show that it had come to light before the High Court that the contract between the parties visualized operation of the oil rigs including drilling operations by the personnel made available under the contracts/agreements, which fact was further stated on affidavit before the High Court by an authorized official of the ONGC in the following terms. “That under the said agreement, Foramer was required, through its personnel listed in Exhibit-A to the said agreement, to carry out inter-alia the drilling operations specified in clause 4.3 to 4.10 of the said agreement.” Despite the above, the High Court took the view that under the agreement payment to M/s. Foramer France was required to be made at the rate of 3450 USD per day and that the contract clearly contemplated rendering of technical services by personnel of the non-resident company. Specifically, taking the view that the contract did not mention that the personnel of the non-resident company was also carrying out the work of drilling of wells and as the company had received fees for rendering service the payments made were liable to be taxed under the provisions of Section 44D of the Act. As already noticed, in the rest of the appeals before the High Court the aforesaid decision dated 15.12.2005 passed in I.T.A. No. 239 of 2001 was followed on the basis that the facts in all the appeals were similar to those involved in I.T.A. No. 239 of 2001.

2. Services starting/re-starting/enhancing production of oil and gas from wells

14. Consequently, all the appeals are allowed with no order as to the costs.

JULY 01, 2015.
Quantum Securities Pvt Ltd And Ors vs New Delhi Television Ltd

3) The facts of the case, which lie in a narrow compass, however, need mention in brief to appreciate the issue involved in these appeals.

4) The appellants are the defendants whereas the respondent is the plaintiff.

5) The respondent (plaintiff) has filed one suit being Civil Suit (L) No. 677 of 2013 (renumbered as Civil Suit No. 284/2014) against the appellants (defendants) in the High Court of Bombay on its original side for claiming the following reliefs:

6) The respondent in the aforementioned pending civil suit filed notice of motion being Notice of Motion (L) No. 1553 of 2013 (renumbered as 488 of 2014) against the appellants herein under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (in short “the Code”) and sought ad- interim relief in terms of prayers (a), (b) and (d) as extracted above during the pendency of the Suit.

7) By interim order dated 06.08.2013, the Single Judge granted ex parte ad-interim relief in terms of prayer (a) to the respondent. The appellants herein on receiving the summons filed their detailed reply to the Notice of Motion on 21.08.2013 denying inter alia all the material allegations made by the respondent. The respondent, in turn, filed their rejoinder on 06.09.2013 to the reply filed by the appellants to the notice of motion.

11) The Single Judge, on hearing the respondent, entertained the contempt petition and by order dated 26.02.2014, observed that on reading the averments made in the contempt petition, a prima facie case for issuance of contempt notice is made out against the appellants and hence rule be issued against them in the contempt notice making it returnable on 26.03.2014. It was also observed that these proceedings would not come in the way of the appellants to prosecute any pending proceedings. The appellants have filed their reply affidavit to the contempt petition on 24.03.2014. The contempt petition is pending.

25) Needless to say, since we have refrained from giving finding on merits on any of the issues and hence the concerned Courts, which are seized of the civil suit/proceedings in question, would decide the matter on merits strictly in accordance with law without being influenced by our observations made herein.

27) It is for these reasons, we do not consider it necessary to discuss in detail the submissions urged by both the learned senior counsel nor we consider it apposite to deal with several case laws cited at the bar.

28) With these observations and the directions, the appeals stand accordingly disposed of. No costs.

July 01, 2015.

Civil Appeal Nos. 4914-15 of 2015 @ SLP (C) No(s). 603-604/2015 QUANTUM SECURITIES PVT LTD AND ORS Petitioner(s) VERSUS NEW DELHI TELEVISION LTD Respondent(s) Date : 01/07/2015 These appeals were called on for pronouncement of judgment today.

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre pronounced the reportable judgment of the Bench comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vikramajit Sen and His Lordship.

Leave granted.

The appeals stand accordingly disposed of in terms of the signed reportable judgment.

(Signed reportable judgment is placed on the file)
Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation & Anr. ... vs Rajubhai Somabhai Bharwad & Anr. Etc

3. The factual score which is necessary to be depicted are that the 1st respondent was appointed as a ‘Mukadam’ with the Gram Panchayat vide order dated 21.5.1995. He was dismissed from service by oral order dated 23.1.1996. The said order of dismissal constrained the first respondent to raise an industrial dispute vide Reference No. 531 of 1996 before the Labour Court, Ahmedabad. No written statement was filed before the Labour Court, but a compromise was entered into between the workman and the Sarpanch stating, inter alia, that the workman was working as a clerk in the Gram Panchayat and he would be reinstated in service on the post of Clerk with continuous service and would be entitled to get all future benefits and further whatever amount is payable towards the post of Clerk, would be paid in three monthly instalments and his service would be continuous.

15. Another material aspect which is required to be taken note of is that the learned Single Judge has referred to Section 2(g) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It defines the term “employer”. We are disposed to think that by no stretch of imagination it can be held that the Sarpanch is the employer of the workman. He belongs to the village panchayat services if he had properly been appointed. It is the village panchayat which is the employer. The laconic analysis on the part of the learned Single Judge in this regard does not commend acceptance and we are unable to agree with the same.

19. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we allow the appeals set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge and that of the Labour Court and remit the matter to the Labour Court for fresh adjudication. We may hasten to clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. As indicated earlier we have not dwelt upon as regards the maintainability of the intra court appeal and we have not expressed any opinion on that score. Be it clarified, the judgment of the Division Bench barring maintainability has not dealt with the issue of merits. Regard being had to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs.

[Uday Umesh Lalit] New Delhi July 1, 2015
State Of M.P vs Ashok & Ors

2. According to the prosecution one Tikaram son of Chote Lal Pandey after finishing his duty was returning home at 8:00 p.m. on 11.04.1989. On the way he met his younger brother PW13 Sheetal Prasad. Both were coming on bicycles, PW13 being 10-15 feet behind said Tikaram. When Tikaram reached Tilwaraghat he was stopped in front of the house of Hari Maharaj by Dibbu @ Devendra by catching his bicycle. Said Dibbu then poured petrol over him and Jittu @ Jitendra burnt him by igniting a match stick. Tikaram started burning and ran from the spot. He was surrounded by present respondents and two others namely Harilal and Banshilal. All of them exhorted to beat him and to burn him and that he should not be allowed to run from the spot. Respondent Vidhna @ Ramdas threw a burning tyre upon him. While Tikaram was running helter-skelter, Harilal threw a sword at him. Tikaram ran to the house of PW3 Vinod and fell there. PW3 extinguished the fire. The incident was witnessed by PW13 who ran to the house and conveyed the fact of Tikaram having been set afire to the inmates of the house. As a result, PW4 Ravindra Kumar Pandey son of said Tikaram and PW15 Laxmi Prasad Pandey rushed to the scene of occurrence. Tikaram disclosed to both PWs 4 and 15 that he was set afire in the aforesaid manner and by the persons mentioned above. Tikaram was then removed to Medical College Hospital, Jabalpur.

12. We therefore allow these appeals, set-aside the judgment and order of acquittal rendered by the High Court and restore the judgment of conviction and sentence as recorded by the trial Court against the respondents. The respondents shall be taken in custody forthwith to serve the sentence awarded to them.
Premier High School vs Khimji Vidhu

2. According to the prosecution one Tikaram son of Chote Lal Pandey after finishing his duty was returning home at 8:00 p.m. on 11.04.1989. On the way he met his younger brother PW13 Sheetal Prasad. Both were coming on bicycles, PW13 being 10-15 feet behind said Tikaram. When Tikaram reached Tilwaraghat he was stopped in front of the house of Hari Maharaj by Dibbu @ Devendra by catching his bicycle. Said Dibbu then poured petrol over him and Jittu @ Jitendra burnt him by igniting a match stick. Tikaram started burning and ran from the spot. He was surrounded by present respondents and two others namely Harilal and Banshilal. All of them exhorted to beat him and to burn him and that he should not be allowed to run from the spot. Respondent Vidhna @ Ramdas threw a burning tyre upon him. While Tikaram was running helter-skelter, Harilal threw a sword at him. Tikaram ran to the house of PW3 Vinod and fell there. PW3 extinguished the fire. The incident was witnessed by PW13 who ran to the house and conveyed the fact of Tikaram having been set afire to the inmates of the house. As a result, PW4 Ravindra Kumar Pandey son of said Tikaram and PW15 Laxmi Prasad Pandey rushed to the scene of occurrence. Tikaram disclosed to both PWs 4 and 15 that he was set afire in the aforesaid manner and by the persons mentioned above. Tikaram was then removed to Medical College Hospital, Jabalpur.

12. We therefore allow these appeals, set-aside the judgment and order of acquittal rendered by the High Court and restore the judgment of conviction and sentence as recorded by the trial Court against the respondents. The respondents shall be taken in custody forthwith to serve the sentence awarded to them.