L-NLProc/TathyaNyaya-and-FactLegalLlama-NyayaScrape-Datasets huggingface dataset:
Jasveer Singh And Anr vs State Of U.P And Ors

4. The appellant thereafter preferred S.L.P. (Civil) No. 27109 of 2014 which was dismissed. However, it was observed that appellants are at liberty to work out their grievance based on the new Land Acquisition Act (2013) by preferring appropriate proceedings. The appellant thereafter filed W.P. No.77449 of 2005 from which these appeals have arisen.

8. We are unable to accept the above submission. It is seen from the above resume of the proceedings that the appellants were paid compensation and possession was duly taken. The appellants also preferred reference on which higher compensation was awarded and matter attained finality upto this Court. The appellants thereafter filed a writ petition challenging the acquisition proceedings which was held to barred by delay and latches against which SLP was dismissed by this Court. Of course, an observation was made that the appellants could prefer appropriate proceedings based on their grievance under the 2013 Act.

10. We, thus, do not find any error in the view taken by the High Court. The appeals are dismissed.
Poonnamma Jagadamma & Ors vs Narayanan Nair & Ors

Respondent No.1 had filed a suit before the Munsiff Court in the year 1975 being O.S. No.1004 of 1975 against the predecessor of the Appellants in respect of the suit property. That suit, however, was dismissed on 11.11.1977 against which Respondent No.1 preferred an appeal before the District Court but was unsuccessful due to dismissal of the appeal on 29.02.1980. In the intervening period, the predecessor of the Appellants filed a suit for injunction against Respondent No.1 in respect of the suit property, being O.S. No.1069 of 1976. This suit, however, was dismissed on 25.03.1978 by the Munsiff Court at Trivandrum. The predecessor of the Appellants filed an appeal against the said decision before the District Court which, however, was dismissed on 20.03.1981. Thus, both sides were unsuccessful in getting relief of injunction against the other party in their respective suits.

The Appellants resisted the said suit by filing their written statement. According to the Appellants, Respondent No.1 was not representing his brother Achuthan Nair and the suit for mandatory injunction on the basis of title was bad for non joinder of necessary parties. The Appellants asserted that they were in occupation/possession of Survey No.2061 which had a clear boundary separating the property allegedly owned and occupied by Respondent No.1. Further, the matter in issue in the present suit was already considered in the previous suits filed by the parties and could not be re- agitated once again between the parties. The parties produced evidence in support of their respective claims. After considering the rival contentions and the evidence on record, the Trial Court, by the judgment and decree dated 09.02.1990, was pleased to decree the suit in the following words:

10. Accordingly, we find no reason to interfere in the fact situation of this case. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs.
Arun Kumar vs State Of Bihar And Ors

3) The prosecution case, in short, is that on 24.07.1991, after having dinner at 9.00 p.m., the informant-Uma Pati Tiwari along with his elder brother Ram Tapasya Pati Tiwari and nephew Sheo Kumar Pati Tiwari were talking with each other at the Bathan situated at Village Kashidat Diara District Siwan, Bihar. At that time, Ram Naresh Chaudhary with Gun, Sukhraj Mallah with Gun, Janardan Ahir with Lathi, Chandeshwar Kurmi with Gun, Anil Singh with Gun, Balinder Ahir with Lathi, Naga Bhar with Lathi and Dwarika Chaudhary with Lathi came there in group and attacked them. Janardan Ahir and Balinder Ahir hit on the right hand of the informant with lathi five times and Sukhraj Mallah fired gun shot on Ram Tapsya Pati Tiwari, the brother of the informant. Ram Naresh Chaudhary, Anil Singh and Sukhraj Mallah fired bullets from gun at Shiv Kumar Pati Tiwari. The informant and the people with him fell down being injured. Shiv Kumar Pati Tiwari died and the accused persons fled away with his dead body towards South. The informant had injuries on his right hand and back and Ram Tapsya Pati Tiwari had gun shot injury on his left eye, left ear and also at nose. The other villagers saw the incident.

4) The cause of the incident was that some days ago, the accused persons had cut and stolen away the barbed wire of the field of the informant upon which, they scolded the accused persons.

7) On the basis of the station diary entry No.393, Sub-Inspector Mr. J.N. Prasad registered FIR No.42/1991 dated 25.07.1991 was lodged against eight accused persons in Assaon Police Station. The accused persons were apprehended.

15) By impugned order, the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant.

18) We are of the considered opinion that the appeal needs to be remanded to the High Court for its hearing on merits afresh in accordance with law. The need to remand the case has occasioned due to the reason that we find that the High Court dismissed the appeal cursorily and by a cryptic order.

5):

May 01, 2017
State Of U.P vs Sunil

2. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the present case are as follows: One Kumari Rekha Sengar (PW-2), who is the complainant in the present case, got a phone call from her mother Smt. Shashi Prabha (now deceased) at about 11.00 to 11.30 pm on 02.09.2000 narrating that complainant’s brother-in-law (Jeeja), namely, Suresh Pal Singh @ Guddu along with his friend had come to their house in Etawah, Uttar Pradesh, demanding Rs.50,000/- from her father and on refusal to meet the demand, they became very angry. The complainant herself had a talk with her brother-in-law and tried to pacify him but she failed as he cut the telephone call. Later when the complainant failed to have further communication on telephone, she left for her parents’ house from Delhi. On reaching her parents’ house she saw dead bodies of her father, mother, two sisters and their pet dog. Law was set into motion after an FIR was registered by the complainant on the basis of written report. The said Suresh Pal Singh was arrested on 04.09.2000 and on the basis of the confessional statement made by the accused, a knife, blood-stained clothes and other articles were recovered by the Investigating Officer (PW-7) in the presence of PW-4 and recovery memo Ext. Ka-8 was made. Involvement of respondent herein was also unearthed on the basis of the said confessional statement. After conclusion of the investigation charge-sheet was submitted before the learned Magistrate who committed the case to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Etawa, U.P. Accused Suresh Pal Singh died during the trial and therefore criminal proceedings against him stood abated. The Trial Court convicting the accused Sunil under Sections 302 & 429 read with Section 34 of IPC and awarded death sentence to him and imposed a fine of Rs.500/- for offence under Section 429 of IPC.

3. Being aggrieved, the accused-respondent preferred Criminal Appeal No.2968 of 2007 and Criminal (Jail) Appeal No.2757 of 2007 before the High Court. Capital Sentence Reference No.12/2007 was made by the Additional Sessions Judge, Etawa. The High Court by its judgment and order dated 23rd May, 2008 set aside the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court and acquitted the accused- respondent. Consequently, Capital Sentence Reference No.12 of 2007 was rejected by the High Court. Hence, the State of U.P. and the complainant are before us by filing Criminal Appeal Nos.1432-1434 of 2011 and Criminal Appeal Nos.1423-1424 of 2011, respectively.

16. After examining every evidence and material on record meticulously and in the light of the judgments cited above, we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution has miserably failed to connect the occurrence with respondent herein. Resultantly, the judgment and order passed by the High Court setting aside of conviction order passed by the Trial Court is hereby upheld.

17. The appeals are, accordingly, dismissed.

....J (Pinaki Chandra Ghose) ...............................

....J (Rohinton Fali Nariman) New Delhi;

May 02, 2017.
M/S Palam Gas Service vs Commissioner Of Income Tax

xxx xxx xxx” As per clause (ia), certain payments made, which includes amounts payable to a contractor or sub-contractor, would not be allowed as expenditure in case the tax is deductible at source on the said payment under Chapter XVIIB of the Act and such tax has not been deducted or, after deduction, has not been paid during the previous year or in the subsequent year before the expiry of the time prescribed under sub-section (1) of Section 200 of the Act. In the instant case, certain payments were made by the appellant assessee, in the Assessment Year 2006-2007 but the tax at source was not deducted and deposited. We may point out here itself that as per Section 194C of the Act, payments to contractors and sub-contractors are subject to tax deduction at source. The Income Tax Department/Revenue has, therefore, not allowed the amounts paid to the sub-contractors as deduction while computing the income chargeable to tax at the hands of the assessee in the said Assessment Year.

Insofar as judgment of the Allahabad High Court is concerned, reading thereof would reflect that the High Court, after noticing the fact that since the amounts had already been paid, it straightaway concluded, without any discussion, that Section 40(a)(ia) would apply only when the amount is 'payable' and dismissed the appeal of the Department stating that the question of law framed did not arise for consideration. No doubt, the Special Leave Petition thereagainst was dismissed by this Court in limine. However, that would not amount to confirming the view of the Allahabad High Court (See V.M. Salgaocar & Bros. (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, (2000) 243 ITR 383 and Supreme Court Employees Welfare Association v. Union of India, (1989) 4 SCC 187.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold that the view taken by the High Courts of Punjab & Haryana, Madras and Calcutta is the correct view and the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in CIT v. Vector Shipping Services (P) Ltd., (2013) 357 ITR 642 did not decide the question of law correctly. Thus, insofar as the judgment of the Allahabad High Court is concerned, we overrule the same. Consequences of the aforesaid discussion will be to answer the question against the appellant/assessee thereby approving the view taken by the High Court.

The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed with costs.

MAY 03, 2017.
Rajasthan Wakf Board vs Devki Nandan Pathak & Ors

9) Respondent Nos.1 to 5 filed the written statement and denied the claim set up by respondent No.6 in the plaint. According to them, the suit land was neither the Wakf property and nor a part of any Wakf property. It was alleged that respondent No.5 being the owner of the suit land had every right to sell the suit land to respondent Nos.1 to 4 and which he did by executing the sale deed. It was also alleged that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to try the suit and the remedy of the plaintiff is to file civil suit before the Civil Court for claiming appropriate reliefs. The Tribunal, on the basis of the pleadings, framed the following issues for adjudication:

11) Felt aggrieved, respondent Nos.1 to 5 filed the revision under Section 83(9) of the Act in the High Court. By impugned order, the Single Judge of the High Court allowed the revision and set aside the order of the Tribunal on the ground that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to try the suit and the remedy of respondent No.6 (plaintiff) was to file civil suit before the Civil Court. The High Court, therefore, did not examine the merits of the issues arising in the case.

18) Learned counsel, therefore, urged that the impugned order should be set aside by holding that the Tribunal has the jurisdiction to try and decide the suit and the matter be accordingly remitted to the High Court for deciding the revision on merits with a view to decide as to whether the Tribunal was justified in holding the suit land to be part of Wakf property or not.

26) In other words, we are of the view that the Tribunal does have jurisdiction to decide the question arising in the suit filed by respondent No.6 and, therefore, the Tribunal rightly tried the suit on merits. The reasons are not far to seek.

29) As a result, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order is set aside.

31) We, however, make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and hence the High Court would now decide the revision expeditiously on merits strictly in accordance with law uninfluenced by any of our observations.

May 04, 2017
Bibi Parwana Khatoon @ Parwana Khatoon ... vs State Of Bihar

3. Prosecution story, in brief, is that Tamkinat Ara @ Bulbul got married to Md. Parwez Alam on 30.09.2009 and she used to live in her in- laws’ house. The prosecution case is that after her marriage deceased used to live with Md. Parwez Alam (husband), Abdul Gaffar (father-in-law), Baitun Nisha (mother-in-law), Bibi Parwana Khatoon (sister of husband) and her husband Md. Hasan (both appellants). It is alleged by the informant Md. Faisal PW-5 (brother of the deceased) that the deceased was killed by setting her on fire by all the above accused. On receiving telephonic information on 30.05.2010 from father-in-law of the deceased, PW-5 Md. Faisal went to see his sister and found that she had died of burn injuries. On the basis of First Information Report given by Md. Faisal Crime Case No. 184 of 2010 was registered relating to offence punishable under Section 304B read with Section 34 IPC against all the five accused at Police Station Khajanchi Hat, Madhubani. PW-7 Arti Kumari Jaiswal, Station House Officer, started investigation. Dead body of the deceased was sealed and sent for post mortem examination. PW-6 Dr. Umesh Kumar of Sadar Hospital, Purnea, conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of Tamkinat Ara and found following ante mortem injuries: -

6. The prosecution evidence appears to have been put to the accused under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code whereafter, on behalf of the accused, defence evidence was adduced, and DW-1 Md. Mozammil Hussain, DW-2 Md. Shamim, DW-3 Manish Kumar Srivastava, DW-4 Raghunandan Yadav, DW-5 Rahul Kumar, DW-6 Mukesh Kumar, DW-7 Nakir Yadav, DW-8 Dhani Yadav, DW-9 Md. Jasir and DW-10 Sanni Yadav, were got examined.

13. In view of the above discussion of oral and documentary evidence, we find that both the courts below have erred in law in holding that the charge under Section 304B read with Section 34 IPC stood proved as against the present appellants. In our opinion, in view of the evidence discussed above, it cannot be said that it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that the present appellants, who are sister-in-law and brother-in-law of the deceased, tortured the victim for any demand of dowry. In our opinion, in the present case which is based on circumstantial evidence it cannot be said that appellants had any common intention with the husband of the deceased in commission of the crime. It is sufficiently shown on the record that they used to live in a different village. Therefore, we are inclined to allow the present appeal.

14. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed, and conviction and sentence recorded as against the present appellants Bibi Parwana Khatoon @ Parwana Khatoon and Md. Hasan @ Hasan Raja is set aside. They are acquitted of charge of offence punishable under Section 304B read with Section 34 IPC. They are in jail. They shall be released forthwith if not required in connection with any other crime.

May 04, 2017.
Jage Ram (D) Thr. Lrs vs Union Of India & Anr

The appellants are owners of the land to an extent of ½ share in Khasra No. 46 (4-08), 462 (4-16), 463 (4-14), totally measuring 13 bighas 18 biswas situated in revenue estate of Village Roshan Pura, New Delhi. The land was acquired for the public purpose of construction of Sub- Divisional Office. The Land Acquisition Collector passed the Award bearing no. 45/78-79, awarding compensation at the rate of Rs. 2,200/- per bigha along with statutory benefits such as solatium, interest etc. as provided under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

4. In the matter on hand, none of the parties have led oral evidence in support of their respective cases. However, certified copies of the two Sale Deeds are available on record which came to be produced by the parties before the Reference Court. The Sale Deed dated 24.01.1974 relied upon by the appellants depicts the price of one bigha of the property sold through the said sale deed was at Rs. 7,000/-, whereas the respondents relied upon the certified copy of Sale Deed dated 19.03.1971 which shows that the land therein was sold at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- per bigha under the said Sale Deed.

9. Accordingly, these appeals are allowed. The compensation is enhanced from Rs. 2,200/- to Rs. 2,600/- per bigha. It is needless to state that the claimants are entitled to all the statutory benefits such as solatium, interest etc. in accordance with law.

10. There shall be no order as to costs.
State Of Haryana And Ors vs Ram Parsad And Anr

3. Prosecution story, in brief, is that Tamkinat Ara @ Bulbul got married to Md. Parwez Alam on 30.09.2009 and she used to live in her in- laws’ house. The prosecution case is that after her marriage deceased used to live with Md. Parwez Alam (husband), Abdul Gaffar (father-in-law), Baitun Nisha (mother-in-law), Bibi Parwana Khatoon (sister of husband) and her husband Md. Hasan (both appellants). It is alleged by the informant Md. Faisal PW-5 (brother of the deceased) that the deceased was killed by setting her on fire by all the above accused. On receiving telephonic information on 30.05.2010 from father-in-law of the deceased, PW-5 Md. Faisal went to see his sister and found that she had died of burn injuries. On the basis of First Information Report given by Md. Faisal Crime Case No. 184 of 2010 was registered relating to offence punishable under Section 304B read with Section 34 IPC against all the five accused at Police Station Khajanchi Hat, Madhubani. PW-7 Arti Kumari Jaiswal, Station House Officer, started investigation. Dead body of the deceased was sealed and sent for post mortem examination. PW-6 Dr. Umesh Kumar of Sadar Hospital, Purnea, conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of Tamkinat Ara and found following ante mortem injuries: -

6. The prosecution evidence appears to have been put to the accused under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code whereafter, on behalf of the accused, defence evidence was adduced, and DW-1 Md. Mozammil Hussain, DW-2 Md. Shamim, DW-3 Manish Kumar Srivastava, DW-4 Raghunandan Yadav, DW-5 Rahul Kumar, DW-6 Mukesh Kumar, DW-7 Nakir Yadav, DW-8 Dhani Yadav, DW-9 Md. Jasir and DW-10 Sanni Yadav, were got examined.

13. In view of the above discussion of oral and documentary evidence, we find that both the courts below have erred in law in holding that the charge under Section 304B read with Section 34 IPC stood proved as against the present appellants. In our opinion, in view of the evidence discussed above, it cannot be said that it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that the present appellants, who are sister-in-law and brother-in-law of the deceased, tortured the victim for any demand of dowry. In our opinion, in the present case which is based on circumstantial evidence it cannot be said that appellants had any common intention with the husband of the deceased in commission of the crime. It is sufficiently shown on the record that they used to live in a different village. Therefore, we are inclined to allow the present appeal.

14. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed, and conviction and sentence recorded as against the present appellants Bibi Parwana Khatoon @ Parwana Khatoon and Md. Hasan @ Hasan Raja is set aside. They are acquitted of charge of offence punishable under Section 304B read with Section 34 IPC. They are in jail. They shall be released forthwith if not required in connection with any other crime.

May 04, 2017.
Bhartiben Ravibhai Rav vs Ravibhai Govindbhai Rav

2. The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 19.02.2006 and the couple was blessed with two sons namely Meshvasinh and Aeshvasinh who are aged eight years and seven years respectively. The relationship between the couple was strained and it is alleged that in September, 2015 the petitioner-wife was thrown out of her matrimonial house. The respondent-husband filed divorce petition being H.M.P. No.1668 of 2015 before the Family Court, Ahmedabad under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 of which the petitioner-wife seeks transfer.

4. Apart from divorce petition, there are other proceedings pending between the parties which have been filed by the petitioner-wife at Dungarpur, Rajasthan viz; (i) FIR under Section 498-A and 406 IPC and under Section 4 of The Dowry Prohibition Act; (ii) Petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the Family Court, Dungarpur, Rajasthan and (iii) petition under Sections 12 and 23 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dungarpur, Rajasthan. It is stated that respondent-husband is already appearing in Dungarpur Court, Rajasthan in connection with the aforesaid cases instituted by the petitioner-wife and that it may not be difficult for respondent-husband to pursue the divorce petition in Dungarpur Court, Rajasthan. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we feel that the petition could be transferred to Dungarpur, Rajasthan.

5. This petition is allowed. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter.

7. On the case being transferred, to Dungarpur, Rajasthan, if need be sufficient security be provided to either of the parties, on an application made before the Court.

May 05, 2017.