L-NLProc/TathyaNyaya-and-FactLegalLlama-NyayaScrape-Datasets huggingface dataset:
M/S. Casio India Co. Pvt. Ltd vs State Of Haryana

2. Presently to the layout of facts in Civil Appeal No. 1410 of 2007. The appellant-company is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of Radio Pagers having its unit at plot No. 4, Phase-I, Udyog Vihar, Gurgaon, Haryana. It is registered under the provisions of Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 (for short, “the Act”), Haryana General Sales Tax Rules, 1975 (for short, “the Rules”) and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (for brevity, “CST Act”) In the year 1995-96, the assessee-company after purchase of Radio Pagers from M/s Bharati Telecom Limited was also engaged in inter- state sale of the said Radio Pagers and in course of the said transaction, did not charge any sales tax from the purchasers on the basis of Notification No. SO 89/CA.74/56/S.8/95 dated 04.09.1995 issued under Section 8(5) of the CST Act read with Rule 28A(4)(c) of the Rules. The appellant filed its return and claimed exemption placing reliance on the said notification, but the claim of exemption put forth by the assessee was not accepted by the assessing officer vide assessment order dated October 05, 2001. Being aggrieved by the order of assessment, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Joint Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeal), Rohtak Circle, Rohtak who dismissed the appeal vide order dated May 2, 2002.

3. Being dissatisfied with the order passed in appeal, the appellant knocked at the doors of the Sales Tax Tribunal, Chandigarh (for short ‘the tribunal’) which dismissed the appeal by its order dated September 9, 2002. The dismissal of the appeal by the tribunal compelled the appellant to prefer Writ Petition No. 2346 of 2003, seeking a direction to the tribunal to make a reference to the High Court. The High Court accepting the prayer of the assessee called for a reference from the tribunal, and the tribunal vide its order dated 14.10.2003 in S.T.M. No. 82 of 2002-03 made a reference to the High Court for its opinion.

22. In view of aforesaid analysis, we allow the appeals and set aside all the impugned orders and hold that assessees shall reap the benefit of the notification dated 04.09.1995 as interpreted by us. There shall be no order as to costs.

March 29, 2016.
Hardei vs State Of U.P

Before adverting to the rival submissions, the relevant facts may be noted in brief. The FIR bearing No. 53 of 2010 leading to this case was lodged on 20th July 2010 by R.D. Sharma, the Project Director of a scheme under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘MNREGA’ Scheme). One Rahul Yadav, a Junior Clerk in the Amroha Block Office and one Omkar Singh were named as accused with allegation that they had, as per enquiry report, prima facie embezzled an amount to the tune of Rs.49 Lacs from official account for the MNREGA Scheme, thereby attracting offence under Section 409 IPC. In the Special Leave Petition there is reference to another FIR bearing No. 50 of 2010 dated 16th July, 2010 lodged by one Mr. Muneshwar Singh, Block Development Officer, Gangeshwari, (J.P. Nagar). In this FIR the same Rahul Yadav, Junior Clerk alone has been named as an accused with allegation of cheating and embezzlement in respect of an amount of Rs.25 lacs of MNREGA. However, in course of further hearing it was made clear by learned counsel for the appellant that the present proceeding does not arise from this FIR and the whole purpose of annexing a copy of this FIR was to draw attention of this Court to allegations to the affect that the appellant although signed cheques for withdrawal of money from MNREGA account, she was innocent and had been cheated by Rahul Yadav.

It would not be proper for us to deal with detailed merits of the prosecution case or the defence case at this juncture. Hence, while dismissing the appeal, we make it clear that the observations made in the impugned orders or this order shall not have any adverse effect on the case of either of the parties. It is also made clear that the appellant shall be at liberty to take all the defence available to her, in accordance with law, in course of the trial. The appeal stands dismissed with the aforesaid observations.

March 30, 2016.
Manish Kumar Sureka vs West Bengal Financial Corporation And ...

(iii) If the condition at clause (i) is complied with, when the matter appears before the Court on 05.01.2016 there shall be a bidding between the purchaser of the appellant and the purchaser who has already bid in the public auction and no third party is entitled to participate in the said bid to be held in Court with a bench price of Rs. 2 crore. The highest bidder whosoever bids beyond Rs. 2 crore shall be entitled to purchase the property.

In case the purchaser of the appellant does not participate in the bid the amount of Rs. 25 lac shall be forfeited and further the sale shall be confirmed in favour of the present purchaser in auction at Rs. 1,88,50,000/- (Rs. one crore eighty eight lac fifty thousand only).

12. We make it clear that under no circumstances, there shall be an extension of time for depositing the amount. In case the appellant fails to deposit the balance on or before 06.05.2016, the bid will stand confirmed in favour of the fifth respondent for an amount of Rs. 2.20 crores and the balance amount shall be deposited in the High Court on or before 14.05.2016.

13. In case the appellant deposits the amount and the bid stands thus confirmed in favour of the appellant, the deposit made by the fifth respondent on 14.09.2015, shall be refunded to the fifth respondent with interest at the rate of 12% within two weeks from the date of the deposit of the balance by the appellant.

14. The subsequent payment made by the fifth respondent on 05.02.2016 will also be refunded to the fifth respondent with interest as aforesaid.

15. We also make it clear that in case the appellant fails to make the deposit with the balance amounts, as directed hereinabove, the initial deposit of Rs.25 Lacs made by the appellant will stand forfeited.

16. It is further made clear that within two weeks from the deposit of the balance amount by either the appellant or by the fifth respondent, the first respondent will take the required further steps for handing over the property after completing the formalities, within two weeks of the deposit.

17. With the above observations and directions, this appeal is disposed of with no order as to costs.

April 07, 2016.
D.D.A vs M/S.Anant Raj Agencies Pvt.Ltd

During the pendency of the said RSA No. 6 of 1983, the respondent applied to DDA for conversion of the said premises from leasehold to freehold vide application dated 26.03.2004. The respondent deposited a sum of Rs.96,41,982/- towards conversion charges as per the policy applicable, but the request for conversion was rejected by the DDA. Being aggrieved by the said decision, the respondent preferred writ petition being CWP No. 10015 of 2005 before the High Court of Delhi praying for directions to be issued to the DDA to consider the request of the respondent and grant conversion of the said premises from leasehold to freehold. The High Court by its order dated 19.07.2007 disposed of the said writ petition by directing DDA to decide the matter of conversion within a period of 8 weeks after the disposal of RSA No. 6 of 1983.

On the basis of the aforesaid rival legal contentions urged on behalf of the parties the following points would arise for consideration of this Court:

For the aforesaid reasons this appeal is allowed, the impugned judgment and decree of the High Court affirming the judgments and decrees of the First Appellate Court and the Trial Court in RCA No. 75 of 1982 and OS No. 47 of 1975 respectively, is hereby set aside. Accordingly, We pass the following order– The DDA is allowed to take the possession of the property in question immediately and dispose of the same in accordance with the provisions of the DD Act read with the relevant Rules in favour of an eligible applicant by conducting public auction, if it intends to dispose of the property. The DDA is entitled for the recovery of damages from both, the original lessee or his legal heirs and the respondent, for the period of their unauthorised occupation of the property at the market rate prevalent in the area.

The amount which has been deposited, with the DDA, by the respondent as conversion charges is to be adjusted towards the damages that may be determined by the DDA in accordance with law.

The costs of Rs.1 lakh is awarded to the DDA, payable by the respondent for these proceedings.
Medical Council Of India vs V.N. Public Health And Educational ...

3. As the factual score would depict, the Trust being aggrieved by the issuance of an invalid certificate by the State of Kerala and disapproval of its scheme for establishment of a new medical college from the academic year 2016-17 approached the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Writ Petition (C) No. 35705 of 2015. The learned single Judge vide order dated 25.11.2015 issued the following directions:-

However, if there are any deficiencies or shortcomings, MCI must, after pointing out the deficiencies, grant to the college concerned sufficient time to report compliance.

(E) The result of such verification if positive in favour of the medical college concerned, the applicant ought to be given requisite permission/renewal. But if the deficiencies still persist or had not been removed, the applicant will stand disentitled so far as that academic year is concerned.”

and in that event, it will be considered appropriately. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
National Highways Authority Of India vs M/S Jsc Centrodostroy

2. Contract No.TNHP/2, Construction Package II-C for a contract price of Rs.295.53 crores for executing the work of 4-laning and strengthening of the existing 2 lanes sections between km 38 to km 115 on National Highway-2 in Uttar Pradesh was awarded to the Respondent on 12.03.2001.

4. Disputes having arisen between the parties, the matter was referred to the Arbitral Tribunal. Two claims were raised by the respondent namely:

6.3 Post award interest shall be payable in addition, on the principal sum awarded of Rs. 11,34,877/- at the rate of 12% per annum from 01.03.2013 to the actual date of payment of amounts under pars 6.1 & 6.2 above. No post award interest shall however be payable in case the above sums are payable within 90 days of the date of award.” Similarly the Arbitral Tribunal awarded to the respondent-claimant following sums under dispute No. 2:-

8. The facts leading to the present appeal arising out of FAO(AS)590 of 2013 are more or less identical. In that matter identical claims were raised on two counts but arising out of a different contract by the very same claimant. The Arbitral Tribunal granted Rs.8,84,969/- in respect of dispute no. 1 with interest @ 12% per annum under identical two heads as found in the earlier case. Similarly, in respect of dispute no.2, the Arbitral Tribunal awarded Rs.42,35,385/- with interest @ 12% per annum.

12. In the circumstances, we do not find any merit in the present appeals. Both the appeals are dismissed without any order as to costs.

…………………………….J (Dipak Misra ) …………………………….J (Uday Umesh Lalit) New Delhi April 18, 2016
Rajesh Verma vs Ashwani Kumar Khanna

3) In order to appreciate the short issue involved in the appeal, it is necessary to state few relevant facts.

5) On 31.10.2014, the appellant and the respondent claimed to have entered into an agreement whereby it was inter alia agreed that the appellant on respondent's vacating the shop would demolish the shop and construct the new one in its place on or before 31.03.2015 and then sell the new shop to the respondent for a total consideration of Rs.42,00,000/-. The agreement further stipulated that the respondent has paid a sum of Rs.32,00,000/- by way of advance to the appellant in cash towards the sale consideration and balance amount of Rs.10,00,000/- was to be paid by the respondent to the appellant at the time of execution of the sale deed. Clause 14 of the agreement contained arbitration clause for making reference to the sole arbitrator in the event of any dispute arising between the parties in relation to the agreement in question.

15) We, accordingly, observe that the arbitrator while deciding the disputes between the parties in arbitration proceedings would not, in any manner, be influenced by any finding, observations made by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order and nor would make any reference of the findings while deciding the case.

17) We, accordingly, appoint Shri Justice M.L. Mehta (Rtd.) as the sole arbitrator to decide the disputes, which have arisen between the parties in relation to the agreement in question. The arbitrator would be at liberty to settle the terms for deciding the dispute such as fees and expenses etc.

18) Needless to say, the arbitration proceedings be completed expeditiously.

19) In the light of foregoing discussion, the appeal succeeds and is allowed in part. Impugned order is modified to the extent indicated above.
Itc Limited Gurgaon vs Commr.Of I.T(Tds) Delhi

4. The Assessing Officer treated the receipt of the tips as income under the head “salary” in the hands of the various employees and held that the assessees were liable to deduct tax at source from such payments under Section 192 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessees were treated by the Assessing Officers as assessees-in-default under Section 201(1) of the Act. The Assessing Officers in various assessment orders worked out the different amounts of tax to be paid by all the aforesaid assessees under Section 201(1), as also interest under Section 201 (1A) of the said Act for assessment years 2003-2004, 2004-2005 and 2005-2006.

23. We approve of the reasoning contained in this judgment and hold that payments of collected tips made in the manner indicated in Paras 7 and 9 above would not be payments made “by or on behalf of” an employer. We agree with the statement of law that there is no ground for saying that these tips ever became the property of the employers. Even if the box were kept in the actual custody of the employer he would have no title to the money as he would hold such money in a fiduciary capacity for and on behalf of his employees. In the said circumstances, it is clear that such payments would be outside the purview of Section 15(b) of the Act.

In the result, we hold that DA, CCA and HRA would be taxable income. Since, counsel for the employees did not make any submission with regard to other allowances like night allowance, tuition fee, leave encashment linked with leave travel concession, running allowance etc. we do not pass any order with regard to those allowances.” [at paras 23, 25 and 28]

36. Shri Kaul further argued that in a cross appeal filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, we should set aside all observations made by the High Court insofar as penalty is concerned. We find on a reading of the assessment order dated 29.3.2007, that penalty proceedings under Section 271C were separately initiated by the Assessing Officer, and consequently form no part of this appeal. Indeed we have been told that by an order dated 19.6.2013, penalty under the said Section has been levied against ITC in Civil Appeals arising from SLP(C) Nos.20822-20824 of 2011. Since the High Court judgment is being set aside in toto, none of the observations on penalty would consequently bind either of the parties.

38. In the view we have taken it is unnecessary to go into various other submissions made by counsel on both sides. The appeals filed by the assessees are, therefore, allowed and civil appeals arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos.9587-9589 of 2012 filed by Revenue are dismissed. The judgment of the High Court is set aside with no order as to costs.
M.K.Indrajeet Sinhji Cotton P.Ltd vs Narmada Cotto Coop.Spg.Mills Ld.& Ors

3. The appellant, a Private Limited Company entered into a lease agreement dated 1-10-1998. Under the agreement it took on lease the mill of the respondent Cooperative Society for a period of five years. Disputes having arisen, the appellant filed a suit against the respondent society on 26-4-2000 before the City Civil Court at Ahmedabad. The appellant sought recovery of Rs.2,51,89,606.79/- (Rupees Two Crores, Fifty One Lakhs, Eighty Nine Thousand, Six Hundred Six and Paise Seven Nine only) with interest at the rate of 21% per annum.

13. We thus have no doubt that the order of the Registrar dated 28-11- 2005 refusing leave to the appellant on the ground that the notice under Section 167 has not been issued therefore the suit is not tenable, is liable to be set aside. It is not possible to agree with the view of the Division Bench that the Registrar must be allowed to consider whether notice has been given or not and, therefore, whether the suit is maintainable or not because if such power is not conceded to the Registrar, it would result in the civil court taking cognizance of a matter which it would have no power to take cognizance of. This argument is completely untenable where the question is one of leave to continue a suit as distinct from leave to institute a suit. It is only in the latter case that this reasoning would have any relevance. In any case, it is not the business of the Registrar to consider the merits and in particular the tenability of a pending suit and hold it to be untenable and thereupon refuse leave to continue the suit. The Civil Court is perfectly competent to decide whether the suit before it is tenable or not.

14. In the result, the appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. The Registrar shall decide the question of permission to continue the suit, afresh.

...............................J (S.A. BOBDE) ................................J (AMITAVA ROY) NEW DELHI, 26th April, 2016
Balram Yadav vs Fulmaniya Yadav

2. The respondent, being aggrieved, moved the High Court of Chhattisgarh. The High court, as per the impugned order dated 14.01.2015, allowed the appeal holding that the Family Court lacked jurisdiction to deal with the matter. According to the High Court, a negative declaration was outside the jurisdiction of the Family Court.

8. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside. The matter is remitted to the High Court to be decided on merits. We request the High Court to hear the appeal afresh and dispose it of expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months.

No costs.
Hemant Madhusudan Nerurkar vs State Of Jharkhand & Anr

The controversy arising for adjudication emerges from the provisions of the Factories Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as ' the Act'), and the Bihar Factories Rules, 1950 (as applicable to the State of Jharkhand). Insofar as the alleged violations committed by the appellants are concerned, a summary of the same stands recorded in paragraph 3 of the impugned judgment, which is extracted hereunder:

43. What is made punishable under the Act is the 'blameworthy' conduct of the occupier which resulted in the commission of the statutory offence and not his criminal intent to commit that offence. The rule of strict liability is attracted to the offences committed under the Act and the occupier is held vicariously liable along with the Manager and the actual offender, as the case may be. Penalty follows actus reus, mens-rea being irrelevant.” In view of the above declaration by this Court, we are of the view, that it is not possible for us to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court, wherein the prayer made by the appellants for quashing the proceedings initiated against them, was declined. We therefore hereby confirm the same.

Having given our thoughtful consideration to the allegations levelled against the appellants, we are satisfied, that in terms of the mandate of section 92 of the Act, ends of justice would be met, if a penalty of Rs.50,000/- each is imposed on the appellants. Ordered accordingly. The aforesaid amount of penalty shall be deposited by the appellants before the trial Court, within four weeks from today.

The instant order shall also dispose of the criminal proceedings against the appellants in G.O. Case No. 252 of 2013, pending before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Seraikella, after the penalty amount is deposited by the appellants before the trial Court.

Disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

PETITION(S) FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (CRIMINAL) NO.6410/2015 (from the judgment and order dated 9.3.2015 in Crl.MP No. 1987/2014 of the HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI) HEMANT MADHUSUDAN NERURKAR Appellant(s) VERSUS STATE OF JHARKHAND & ANR. Respondent(s) (with appln(s) for exemption from filing c/c of the impugned judgment and exemption from filing OT and permission to bring additional facts and documents on record and interim relief and office report) WITH SLP(CRIMINAL) NO. 6406 OF 2015 (With (With (With appln.(s) for permission to bring additional facts and documents on record and appln.(s) for c/delay in refiling SLP and appln.(s) for exemption from filing O.T. and Interim Relief and Office Report) Date : 04/05/2016 These petitions were called on for hearing today.

CORAM :
Muddasani Venkata Narsaiah(D)Tr.Lrs vs Muddasani Sarojana

3. The plaintiff filed a suit before the trial Court for possession of disputed property and mesne profits based upon the title. It was averred in the plaint that Veeraiah and Balaiah were sons of late Rajaiah. Both the sons predeceased their father Rajaiah. Plaintiff is son of Veeraiah and Yashoda is wife of the said late Balaiah. After the death of Rajaiah, the property was given as widow’s estate to Yashoda. It was to be reverted to the plaintiff after the death of Yashoda. Yashoda enjoyed the property in her lifetime. However, after her death, Smt. Gandla Buchamma, surviving sister of late Balaiah succeeded to the property and sold it to plaintiff vide registered sale deed dated 25.4.1981 and also delivered the possession. Thereafter on 12.6.1981 the defendants forcibly evicted the plaintiff from the property.

19. In the circumstances, appeal is allowed, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court dismissing the suit is set aside and the judgment and decree passed by the first Appellate Court is restored. The parties to bear their own costs.

Civil Appeal No(s).4816/2016 @ SLP(C)No.13076/2007 MUDDASANI VENKATA NARSAIAH(D)TR.LRS. Appellant(s) VERSUS MUDDASANI SAROJANA Respondent(s) Date : 05/05/2016 This appeal was called on for pronouncement of JUDGMENT today.

For Appellant(s) Mr. K. Shivraj Choudhuri,Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Sridhar Potaraju,Adv.

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arun Mishra pronounced the judgment of the Bench comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.Gopala Gowda and His Lordship.

Leave granted.

The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed reportable Judgment. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.