L-NLProc/TathyaNyaya-and-FactLegalLlama-NyayaScrape-Datasets huggingface dataset:
Prakash vs State Of Rajasthan

2) Brief facts:

e) Challenging the order of conviction and sentence, the appellants filed appeal being D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 154 of 2002 before the High Court. By order dated 02.03.2006, the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants herein.

10) The next witness relied on by the prosecution is PW-7, mother of the deceased. In her evidence, she deposed that she had three children. The name of the third child was Kamlesh. She narrated that about 14 months ago, she had sent Kamlesh to school. On the relevant date, when she was standing outside her house, the accused persons, namely, Pappu, Ramesh and Prakash present in the court were standing at the shop of Pappu. Amongst them, Pappu went to his house and brought scooter and went on the scooter in the same direction in which Kamlesh and Santosh had gone. Thereafter, she went inside her home. At the relevant time, her husband was doing the work of light fitting and he used to go to work spot at 9 ‘O Clock in the morning return home at 8 ‘O Clock in the evening. On the relevant date, when he returned home, she informed him that their son Kamlesh had not come back from the school. Thereafter, her husband PW-1 went in search of Kamlesh along with her brother Prem. She also narrated the incident about Ramesh that 12 months prior from the date of her missing of her son, at 11 O clock, she had seen the accused Ramesh entering the house of Indrammal which is close to her house. Ramesh had relationship with the daughter of Indrammal, namely, Pappuni. The said Ramesh used to enter their house even during night. She informed the same to Indrammal’s wife. She also disclosed this fact to other neighbours. According to her, on coming to know of the said incident, Indrammal and his sister beat her for which she had lodged a complaint with the police due to which they threatened that they would take revenge of it. One month after the said incident, Pappuni died by consuming poison and, thereafter, the accused Ramesh used to quarrel with her and many times threatened her. She also reported the matter to the police. With the assistance of the local people, the matter was compromised with him. However, she complained that after compromise, her son Kamlesh was missing and subsequently murdered. She narrated the motive for killing of her son by the accused persons. She also asserted that Pappu, Ramesh and Prakash had made her son disappear and according to her, they did it on account of the death of Pappuni and thereafter, murdered her son.

16) In the light of the above discussion, we hold that the prosecution has established all the circumstances by cogent and acceptable evidence and if we consider all the circumstances it leads to a conclusion that it was the appellants/accused who kidnapped and committed the murder of the deceased Kamlesh. We are satisfied that the trial Court has rightly accepted the prosecution case and awarded life sentence which was affirmed by the High Court. We fully concur with the said conclusion. Consequently, the appeals fail and the same are dismissed.

MARCH 22, 2013.
K.R.J. Sarma vs R.V. Surya Rao & Anr

2. The facts very briefly are that the respondent was married to Vijaya Bala. Vijaya Bala died on 27-06-1994 by consuming poison and committing suicide at her residential apartment in Soverign Shelter Apartments, Hyderabad. After investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the respondent under Sections 306 and 498A, IPC. The Trial Court, however, found that the deceased Vijaya Bala had left a suicide note (Ext.P1) addressed to the police to the effect that no one was responsible for the death of the deceased and there was no pressure either from her parents, husband (respondent), children or friends and relatives and that the decision to commit suicide was taken by her on her own will and the suicide note was also signed by the deceased. The Trial Court, after considering the contents of Ext. P1 and after considering all other evidence, held that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the respondent had abetted the deceased to commit suicide and accordingly acquitted the respondent of the charges under Sections 498A and 306, IPC.

8. The appeals are accordingly dismissed.
M/S Usha Stud & Agr.Farms P.Ltd vs State Of Haryana & Ors

3. The appellants challenged the acquisition of their land in Writ Petition No.5623/1984 which was dismissed by the High Court along with other similar petitions.

4. The appellants then filed Special Leave Petition (C) No.2302/1986. During the pendency of the matter before this Court, the State Government released the land belonging to M/s. Jawala Textiles Ltd., M/s. Rani Shaver Poultry Farm Ltd., M/s. Enfilco Ltd., M/s. Indo Swiss Time Limited and M/s. Omega Commercial (Pvt.) Ltd.

6. In furtherance of the agreement, the appellants deposited Rs.1,00,000/- which, according to them, were towards the first instalment of the development charges. However, before the other terms of agreement could be acted upon, the State Government issued fresh notification dated 7.12.1988 under Section 4(1) for the acquisition of 55.10 acres land including the land owned by the appellants. They filed detailed objections dated 4.1.1989, the salient features of which were:

10. M/s. Rani Shaver Poultry Farm Ltd., M/s. Indo Swiss Time Ltd., and M/s. Kanodia Petro Products Ltd., successor of M/s. Jawala Textile Mills, whose lands were acquired in 1981 but were released by the State Government and were re-acquired vide notification dated 11.9.1990 filed Writ Petition Nos. 11679/1993, 10456/1993 and 3942/1992 for quashing the same. After receiving the notices issued by the High Court, the State Government/HUDA executed separate agreements with them and released substantial portion of their land. As a sequel to this, the writ petitions were dismissed as withdrawn. However, the writ petition filed by M/s. Enfilco Ltd. was dismissed by the High Court. When the matter was carried to this Court (Civil Appeal No.4359/1994) an agreement was executed between HUDA and M/s. Enfilco Ltd. and major portion of its land was released.

The ADUE has therefore proposed that to remove any plea of discrimination the lands of M/s Rani Shaver, Jawala Textile Mills and Indo Swiss time should also now be acquired and therefore notified simultaneously.

34. As a sequel to the above discussion, we hold that the decision taken at the level of the Chief Minister was not in consonance with the scheme of Section 5-A(2) read with Section 6(1). We further hold that the State Government’s refusal to release the appellants’ land resulted in violation of their right to equality granted under Article 14 of the Constitution.

35. In the result, the appeals are allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the declaration issued by the State Government under Section 6(1) is quashed. However, it is made clear that this judgment shall not preclude the State Government from taking fresh decision after objectively considering the objections filed by the appellants under Section 5-A(1).

36. If the final decision of the State Government is adverse to the appellants, then they shall be free to challenge the same before an appropriate judicial forum and urge all legally permissible contentions in support of their cause.

April 02, 2013.

[pic]
Sandeep Kumar Chourasia vs Divinl.Manager,New India ...

5. The appellant’s father lodged a claim for compensation by asserting that his son had suffered loss of vision due to accidental fall. After long correspondence, the respondents rejected the claim on the ground that the same was not covered by the policy. The appellant then filed a complaint through his father for award of compensation of Rs.7,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 18% to 25% and cost. In the complaint it was pleaded that the appellant had suffered injury to the right eye and consequential loss of vision and hearing in both ears on account of accidental fall.

7. The appellant’s father Shri P.D. Chourasia filed his affidavit in support of the claim. On behalf of respondent No.1, Shri Ajit Kumar (Branch Manager) filed his affidavit. After considering the pleadings of the parties and affidavits filed on their behalf, the State Commission decided to call for an expert opinion. Accordingly, a request was sent to the management of Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar Memorial Hospital, Raipur to constitute a Medical Board to examine the appellant. The Medical Board headed by Dr. A.K.Chandrakar, Professor and Head, Department of Ophthalmology examined the appellant on 5.8.2005 and submitted a report, the relevant portion of which is extracted below:

Complaint is dismissed.”

15. In the result, the appeal is allowed, the impugned order as also the one passed by the State Commission dismissing the complaint filed by the appellant are set aside and the respondents are directed to pay compensation of Rs.7,00,000/- to the appellant with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing the complaint.

16. The respondents are directed to pay the aforesaid amount to the appellant within a period of eight months from the date of receipt/production of copy of this judgment.
Baleshwar Rajbanshi & Ors vs Bd.Of Trustees For Port Trus.Of ...

4. After the issuance of the notification, the appellants who claimed to be engaged for the works covered by the notification for more than two decades through different contractors approached the Calcutta High court in W.P. No.20171 (W) of 2005 seeking a direction from the High Court to the Port Trust to abolish the system of giving the works covered by the notification to the contractors. On the other hand, the Port Trust also approached the High Court in W.P. 22545 (W) of 2005, questioning the validity of the notification. The two writ petitions were heard together by a learned single Judge who decided to consider the writ petition filed by the Port Trust first, as the decision on the legality of the notification would have a direct bearing on the writ petition filed by the individual workmen.

8. After remand, the division bench of the High Court once again heard the appeal and disposed it of by a brief order, modifying the order of the learned single Judge and notwithstanding the notification under section 10 of the Act, allowing the Port Trust to assign the work of laying and linkage of railway tracks as one time measure to RITES, another Central Government organization.

19. We are, therefore, unable to sustain the impugned order passed by the division bench. The order of the division bench of the High Court is set aside and the order of the learned single Judge is restored.

20. The appeal is allowed but with no order as to costs.

April 2, 2013.
Mohd.Yousuf vs Dir.Gen.Of Fire Ser.A.P.& Ors

4. The appellant was working as a driver at Fire Station Sanathnagar under the Fire Service Department. He was dismissed from service following an ex-parte enquiry on charges of unauthorized absence. The order of dismissal was passed on January 12, 1994 but dismissal from service was made retrospective, with effect from December 29, 1992.

6. The appellant took recourse to departmental appeals. His appeals to the departmental officers were unsuccessful, but at the end of the hierarchy, the Home Minister passed the order on March 22, 1999 directing that the appellant’s dismissal would be effective from the date of the order i.e. January 12, 1994 and not from the earlier date, December 29, 1992.

8. Failing to get the desired relief from the departmental authorities, the appellant finally moved the Administrative Tribunal by O.A. No.4949/2000. The Tribunal by its order, dated March 11, 2003 found and held that the enquiry was not conducted in accordance with the A.P.C.S. (CC & A) Rules 1991, and no enquiry report was furnished to the appellant. Further that on receipt of the Enquiry Officer’s report, the Regional Fire Officer straightaway issued the order of punishment dismissing the applicant from service and, hence, his order was not in accordance with the A.P.C.S. (CC & A) Rules, 1991.

7. His dismissal order was revised accordingly.

10. The respondents challenged the order of the Tribunal by filing a writ petition before the High Court and the High Court by its judgment and order dated March 23, 2005 allowed the writ petition and set aside the judgment and order passed by the Tribunal. The review petition filed by the appellant was also dismissed by order dated April 13, 2010. The appellant has finally brought the matter to this Court in appeal by special leave.

13. In the facts of the case, there was no occasion for the High Court to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. We, accordingly, set aside the impugned orders of the High Court and restore the order of the Tribunal.

14. In the result, the appeals are allowed but with no order as to costs.
Ramesh Chandra Shah & Ors vs Anil Joshi & Ors

7. The review applications filed by the selected candidates were dismissed by the Division Bench but the time fixed for compliance of the direction contained in judgment dated 2.5.2012 was extended.

12. The State of Uttarakhand (earlier known as ‘Uttaranchal’) was formed w.e.f. 9.11.2000. Before formation of the new State, recruitment to the posts of Physiotherapist and Occupational Therapist was governed by the Special Rules and recruitment to other group “C” posts was governed by the provisions contained in the Uttar Pradesh Procedure for Direct Recruitment for Group ‘C’ Posts (Outside the purview of the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission) Rules, 1998, which were published in Official Gazette dated 9.6.1998. After formation of the new State, the rules governing the recruitment and other conditions of service applicable to the erstwhile State of Uttar Pradesh were adopted by the Government of the new State by Adaptation and Modification Order 2002. In 2008, the Governor of Uttarakhand in exercise of the powers conferred upon him by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution amended the Special Rules. The academic and preferential qualifications for the post of Physiotherapist, as contained in the Special Rules were:

25. We are also prima facie of the view that the learned Single Judge committed an error by holding that despite the non obstante clause contained in Rule 2 of the General Rules, the Special Rules would govern recruitment to the post of Physiotherapist. However, we do not consider it necessary to express any conclusive opinion on this issue and leave the question to be decided in an appropriate case.

26. In the result, the appeals are allowed, the impugned orders as also the one passed by the learned Single Judge are set aside and the writ petition filed by the private respondents is dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs.

April 3, 2013.
A.G.M, Karnataka State Financial Corpn vs Gen.Sec.,Mysore Div.Ind.Work.Uni.& ...

3. The short facts leading to the present special leave petition are this wise: The respondent No.1 is a Trade Union registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926 and was representing the workmen of the industrial concern known as Mysore Panel and Boards Pvt. Ltd. This company closed down its manufacturing activities sometime in January, 2002, leaving some 83 workmen jobless. Consequent upon the closure of the said company, there were various statutory and legal dues of the workmen, and for that purpose they filed Applications under Section 33- C of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as well as under the Payment of Gratuity Act. Those applications were allowed by the concerned authorities. Thus, one Application was allowed by order dated 4.3.2005 for a claim of Rs.4,71,781/-, another Application was allowed by the order dated 30.8.2005 for a claim of Rs.16,66,585/- and the third Application filed under the Payment of Gratuity Act was allowed by order dated 13.9.2005 for a sum of Rs.7,78,696/-, resulting into total dues of Rs.29,17,062/-. Having waited sufficiently, the respondent Trade Union wrote to the Deputy Commissioner of the Mysore District, Mysore by its letter dated 28.8.2008 seeking recovery of these amounts.

.........................J (H.L. GOKHALE) ...........................J (RANJAN GOGOI) New Delhi;

April 03, 2013.
Div. Logging Manager, U.P. Forest Corp vs Surender Singh

3. According to the appellant, the respondent herein was working as a Logging Forest Guard and that he was engaged on seasonal basis. The case of the respondent is that he had regular work to do, his employment was not on seasonal basis and he had rendered continuous service for more than one year. It appears that the respondent had joined as a Forest Guard way back in 1986 and he continued in that position until February, 1993. It is the case of the respondent that his services were discontinued thereafter whereas the case of the appellant is that since he was not coming for work, the appellant sent him a retrenchment notice dated 19.6.1995 which, according to the appellant, he declined to receive. In any case, the fact remained that before the retrenchment notice, he had raised an industrial dispute in January, 1994.

4. Considering all these facts, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the order of termination of the services of the workman was illegal and unjustified as the retrenchment notice was subsequent to his termination. That being so, the Labour Court held that it was a case of termination of his services and not the case where he had stopped from coming to work. Therefore, the Labour Court was of the view that his termination with effect from 23.2.1993 was improper and illegal. The Labour Court, therefore, directed his reinstatement with 50% back-wages and with costs of Rs.1,000/-.

8. We have noticed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. The view taken by the Labour Court appears to be a plausible one inasmuch as the Forest Guards are very much required in the forest and there is no reason for a lowly paid employee not to report for duty. Similarly, the view taken by the Labour Court that the compensation amount was tendered to him subsequent to his retrenchment also appears to be correct inasmuch as the respondent had already raised an industrial dispute. The payment made subsequently was, in fact, denied. In the facts and circumstances of this case, we do not find any error in the order passed by the Labour Court or by the High Court. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

9. We make it clear that in case the respondent is not reinstated so far, he will be reinstated within a period of four weeks from today and the back-wages will be paid to him within a period of eight weeks from today.

.........................J (H.L. GOKHALE) ..........................J (RANJAN GOGOI) New Delhi;

April 03, 2013.
Rani Laxmibai Kshetriya Gramin Bank& ... vs Manoj Kumar Chak Etc

C-78/316(GEN)/87-88, explaining the concept of promotion by “Seniority-cum-Merit” as envisaging promotion by seniority with due considerations to minimum merit/fitness prescribed. Further, it was stipulated that “this rule envisages promotion by seniority with due considerations to minimum merit/fitness prescribed. Fitness implies that there is nothing against an officer; no disciplinary action is pending against him and none is contemplated. The officer has neither been reprimanded nor any adverse remarks have been conveyed to him in the reasonable recent past”. Although the aforesaid Circular was issued in relation to promotion of Managers to the post of Area/Sr. Manager, it was observed that the similar procedure may be followed in case of the promotion of Sr. Clerk and internal promotion to Field Supervisor and Manager Posts.

15. Whilst the aforesaid matters were still pending, it appears that the Punjab National Bank and Bank of Baroda issued another clarification by the Circular No. 17 of 2009 dated 30th November, 2009. The aforesaid circular entitled “Appointment and Promotion of Officers and other Employees of RRBs” reiterated the provision contained in the Notification dated 29th July, 1998. Pursuant to the aforesaid, Sarva U.P. Gramin Bank issued a Circular dated 12th July, 2010 incorporating the clarification contained in the Circular dated 12th July, 2010, subsequently reiterated on 30th November, 2009. The aforesaid Circulars were also challenged in Writ Petition Nos. 55913, 50638, 50629, 51003 and 50633 of 2010.

41. In our opinion, the observations made by this Court in the case of Ram Ashish Dixit (supra) are a complete answer to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Dhruv Mehta. Therefore the High Court, in our opinion, has rightly quashed the aforesaid two Circulars and directed that the respondent be considered for promotion in accordance with the applicable rules.

42. We, therefore find no merit in the civil appeals filed by the appellant-bank, and are accordingly dismissed. No costs.

April 09, 2013.
Venkataraja & Ors vs Vidyane ...

2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to these appeals are that:

J. Defendant No.10 Jeyaraman, who was the husband and father of respondent nos. 4 and 5 respectively, purchased the suit property from defendant no.1 vide registered sale deed dated 26.4.1980.

M. Aggrieved, the appellant/plaintiff filed an appeal challenging the said judgment and order dated 7.10.1983, before the court of the District Judge, and the said appeal was allowed vide judgment and decree dated 13.4.1989, observing that the sale deed had been executed by Thayanayagy Ammalle in favour of defendant no. 1 on 16.7.1959, prior to the extension of the Hindu Succession Act to Pondicherry on 1.10.1963. The result of the same was that she had sold only her life estate in the suit property, as she was only a life estate holder and upon her death, the property devolved on the sole living reversionary. Further, it was held that, as the appellant/plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration in respect of the suit property in which there were tenants, it was not necessary for the appellant to claim any consequential relief for the reason that after obtaining such a declaration, appropriate relief could be claimed under Pondicherry Non- Agricutural Kudiyiruppudars (Stay of Eviction Proceedings) Act of 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act 1980’). There was thus, no need for a separate prayer for recovery of possession, as the same could be asked only under the Special Enactment.

In view of the fact that the tenants could have been evicted subsequently by the appellant/plaintiff, resorting to the provisions of the Act 1980, which had been extended upto 31.3.1990, the suit was maintainable, and the trial court ought not to have dismissed the said suit on the ground that appellant/plaintiff had not sought consequential relief of recovery of possession.

As a consequence, the appeals lack merit and, are accordingly dismissed. There is no order as to costs.

April 10, 2013.