L-NLProc/TathyaNyaya-and-FactLegalLlama-NyayaScrape-Datasets huggingface dataset:
Indian Institute Of Technology vs M.S.Bidarkundi And Ors

2. During the pendency of the said petition, the age of superannuation of employees of the Institute which was originally 60 years, was increased as 62 years 2 in respect of academic staff (scientific design staff and others), personnel of Registry (Registrar, Deputy Registrar and Assistant Registrar), Library (Librarian, Deputy Librarian, Assistant Librarian) and Physical Education (Group `A') who were on the roll of the Institute as on 31.8.1998, vide Resolution of Board of Governors dated 15.6.1999, pursuant to Government of India's directive dated 31.8.1998. As the Laboratory Superintendents were not being categorized either as academic staff or as personnel of Registry, Library or Physical Education, they were not extended the benefit of the increased age of superannuation. Therefore, they filed another Writ Petition No.922 of 2000, seeking a declaration that they are entitled to the benefit of the enhanced age of superannuation (62 years) as per the Government of India's directive dated 31.8.1998 and subsequent clarifications. Alternatively, they sought quashing of the said directive dated 31.8.1998 and the consequential resolution of the Institute dated 15.6.1999, if they were to be construed as ignoring the Laboratory Superintendents as a class from coverage.

3. The High Court disposed of the said two writ petitions by a common order dated 7.7.2004. It held that on account of passage of time, the issues raised in WP No.1757 of 1988 had become academic and consequently disposed of the said writ petition, as no relief was required to be granted to the writ petitioners in that petition. In so far as WP No.922 of 2000, the High Court declared that the respondents are eligible for the increased age of superannuation of 62 years as per the Government of India's directive dated 31.8.1998 and subsequent clarifications. The High Court also issued a direction to the Institute to implement the said GOI directive dated 31.8.1998 and its clarifications and apply to the respondents, the 3 increased age of superannuation of 62 years. A further direction was issued to the Government of India to release necessary grants to the Institute to enable the Institute to pay the arrears of salary and other consequential benefits to the respondents herein within four months. A direction was issued to the Institute to pay the respondents, on release of grant by the Government of India, within four weeks of such release. The Court further directed that if the respondents were entitled to be reinstated as a consequence the Institute should either reinstate them or give the monetary benefits upto the age of superannuation.

7. We therefore allow these appeals and issue the following directions in place of the directions issued by the High Court :
Bhakra Beas Management Board vs Kanta Aggarwal & Ors

3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

An appeal was filed before the High Court. It was pointed out that on the death of K.C. Aggarwal, respondent No.1- widow had been provided with compassionate appointment and she was getting salary of nearly Rs.4,700/- p.m. (basic pay of nearly Rs.4,700/-) and a residence was provided to 3 her. The High Court did not accept this plea and observed that the quantum of compensation has been rightly fixed.

14. The appeal is allowed in the aforesaid extent.

.................................J. (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT) ................................J. (P. SATHASIVAM) New Delhi, July 7, 2008 14
C.E.S.C. Ltd vs Sandhya Rani Barik & Ors

3. The number of claimants was quite large and about 20. They were booked in three sets. The land was acquired under the West Bengal Act in May 1995. The requisition was made in 1995 and the Notification was issued on 3.5.1995. The total area was more than 3 bighas. One bigha is 20 cottahs and 1 cottah is 720 sq.ft. The land was part of 10 bigha tract 2 situated in 156A, Manicktala Main Road owned previously by a single common ancestor namely, Kali Pada Barik who had since died. The Collector made the award some time in the year 1997 and thereafter the Land Acquisition Judge was approached on reference by the Bariks i.e the respondents in the three appeals. The Collector's award was initially on the basis of about Rs.50,000/- per cottah as compensation but the Land Acquisition Judge on the first occasion raised it to nearly Rupees 5 lakhs per cottah. At that stage the State and the Bariks were opposite parties. Since the land was acquired for the purpose of present appellant which was the requiring authority under the West Bengal Act, acquisition has to be preceded by a requisition for maintenance of supplies essential to public life and in this case supply of electricity was the service involved. A Sub-station i.e. 132 K.V. had already been built over the acquired land. The Requiring Authority filed a Writ Petition before the High Court taking the stand that the matter was decided in its absence. On 3rd May, 2000 order was passed by a Division Bench of the High Court whereby the matter was remanded to the Land Acquisition 3 Judge directing the appellant to be made a party. It also directed that persons who had already been examined before the Land Acquisition Judge would be again presented for cross examination by the appellant subject to their availability. The matter was considered again. The Land Acquisition Judge again made assessment and after hearing the present appellant held that the rate per cottah would be higher. But in view of the fact that earlier a lower rate had been fixed, same was maintained.

6. Bariks on the other hand took the stand that entire money was not spent on land development, but a part of that was for putting up the structures of the appellant as well. The High Court referred to some factual aspects and took note of the fact that the appellant's main grievance was that large track of land was the subject matter of acquisition and the rates applied for smaller plots cannot have any relevance. After referring to certain factual aspects, the High Court disposed of the appeals in the following manner:

19. We do not find any infirmity in the approach of the High Court. Therefore, the rate fixed by the High Court does not suffer from infirmity. The appeals filed by the appellant-CESC, therefore, stand dismissed.

23. The cross-appeals are allowed to that limited extent. There will be no order as to costs.

J. (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT) ..............................J. (P. SATHASIVAM) New Delhi, July 7, 2008 14
Murugan vs State Of T.Nadu

P.W.1 gave a chase accompanied by Elumalia-P.W.2. The accused took shelter in a nearby bush. He went to the church and informed the people over there. He came down to his house and found his wife dead. Thereafter P.W.1 went to Kolathur Police Station and lodged a complaint (Ex.P1) to the sub-Inspector of Police, P.W.9, who was present over there. The latter registered a case in Crime No.1050/2000 for the 3 offence under Section 302 IPC and prepared printed FIR Ex. P9 and despatched the same to the learned Judicial Magistrate concerned and the copies thereof to the higher officials.

12. The appeal fails and is dismissed.
Balwant Singh Narwal & Ors vs State Of Haryana & Ors

2. The Haryana Public Service Commission - the third respondent (`Commission' for short) issued an advertisement in January, 1992 inviting applications for 18 posts of temporary Principals in higher secondary schools. The advertisement made it clear that the number of posts advertised was subject to variations to any extent. On 1.6.1993, the State Education Department made a fresh requisition to the Commission in regard to additional vacancies, thereby increasing the posts to be filled to 37. Respondents 4 to 16 were applicants against the said advertisement and underwent the process of selection. The Commission declared the merit list of 30 selected candidates on 30.9.1993 (published on 1.10.1993), which included Respondents 4 to 16. However, before the State Government could make appointment in terms of the said list, a non-selected candidate filed WP No.12700 of 1993 contending that only 18 posts were notified and the Commission could not make recommendations for selection of 30 candidates. The said writ petition was allowed by a learned Single Judge of the Punjab & Haryana High Court on 4.4.1994 and the recommendations in excess of the 18 vacancies were quashed on the ground that the Commission could not make recommendations beyond the number of posts advertised. A Division Bench dismissed the appeal against the judgment of the learned 3 Single Judge on 18.1.1999. In the meanwhile, in view of the order of the learned Single Judge, the State Government appointed only 16 candidates from the list of 30 by order dated 2.6.1994. The State Government appointed only 16 as against 18 permitted by the High Court, not for want of vacancies but on account of some technical difficulty in appointing other two candidates.

4. In pursuance of the said judgment, the State Government by order dated 26.5.2000 appointed respondents 4 to 16 as Principals. The said respondents gave several representations dated 19.7.2000, 5.9.2000, 4.10.2000, 10.10.2000 and 11.10.2000 for fixing their seniority with reference to the merit list published by the Commission on 1.10.1993. They pointed out that but for the litigation, they would have been appointed along with the other 16 candidates on 2.6.1994 and as their selection was in regard to vacancies which were notified in January, 1992, they should be given seniority above those who were appointed against subsequent vacancies. The State Government considered and accepted their request and fixed their position immediately after the 16 candidates who were appointed from the same merit list on 2.6.1994. As a result, they have been shown above the appellants in the provisional seniority list of Principal H.E.S.-II.

10. In view of the above, we find no reason to interfere with the order of the High Court and these appeals are accordingly dismissed.

............................J [R. V. Raveendran] 8 .............................J [P. Sathasivam] New Delhi;

July 8, 2008.
Genda Singh & Ors vs State Of U.P

3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

Injuries of PW-5 Kendra Pal Singh were also medically examined at Primary Health Centre, Haldaur on 18th June, 4 1980 at 9.15 a.m. (Exh. Ka-2) by PW-1 (Dr. Chaod Kumar Singh).

15. Factual scenario as noted above clearly goes to show that though the appellants claimed to be exercising the right of private defence, it was exceeded. That being so, the protection for exercising the right of private defence cannot be extended 15 to the appellants. But the appropriate conviction would be under Section 304 Part I IPC and custodial sentence of 10 years in case of each appellant and fine imposed by the trial Court would meet the ends of justice.

16. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.

.................................J. (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT) .................................J. (P. SATHASIVAM) New Delhi, July 9, 2008 16
Panful Nessa vs Md. Miraj Ali & Ors

3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

8. Learned counsel for the accused respondents 1 to 9 submitted that the trial is in progress and there is no allegation of any misuse of liberty. That question need not be considered in the present proceedings because the impugned 6 directions of the High Court are unsustainable. We therefore set aside that part of the order directing release of respondents 1 to 9 on bail. The High Court had completely foreclosed consideration of the application for bail. It also did not examine the question as to the desirability of respondents 1 to 9 being released on bail. Merely because according to the High Court the learned SDJM had not followed the directions in its proper perspective that could not have been a ground for directing release of respondents 1 to 9 on bail. We, therefore, set aside the direction contained in the impugned order regarding grant of bail to respondents 1 to 9. Let the respondents appear before the concerned Court where the trial is in progress. If any application for bail is made, the same shall be considered in its proper perspective by the concerned Court. We express no opinion on the merits of the case.

9. The appeal is allowed.

..................................J. (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT) 7 ................................J. (P. SATHASIVAM) New Delhi, July 9, 2008 8
J.Lalitha vs Jeyaguru

The petitioner is the wife of the respondent and the respondent had filed a petition for divorce of the marriage before the Principal Family Court at Bangalore. The petitioner-wife is residing at Rajapalayam town in Tamil Nadu and seeks transfer of the M.C.No.552/06 titled as Jayaguru Vs. J.Lalitha, pending in the Principal Family Court at Bangalore to the District Court at Srivilliputur(Tamil Nadu). The respondent has no objection for such transfer. In the circumstances, M.C.No.552/06 titled as Jeyaguru Vs. J.Lalitha, pending in the Principal Family Court at Bangalore is directed to be transferred to the District Court at Srivilliputur (Tamil Nadu) to be tried by the District Court or be entrusted to be tried by the Court of competent jurisdiction. The transferee Court may endeavour to dispose of the matter at an early date.

The transfer petition is allowed accordingly.

...............CJI.

9TH JULY, 2008.
Faqir Chand Gulati vs Uppal Agencies Pvt. Ltd. & Anr

2. The appellant is the owner of premises no. L-3, Kailash Colony, New Delhi. He entered into a `collaboration agreement' dated 17.5.1991 with the first respondent, the terms of which are, in brief, as follows :

(v) The new building to be constructed by the builder shall be of good quality as per the detailed specifications contained in Annexure-A to the agreement.

3. The appellant (also referred to as `land-owner') alleges that the first respondent (also referred to as the `builder') secured sanction of the plan for construction from the Municipal Corporation of Delhi [for short 'MCD') but made several unauthorized deviations during construction, resulting in several deviation notices from MCD. In fact, MCD passed an order dated 16.1.1991 to seal the premises, but subsequently, the premises was de- sealed to enable the builder to rectify the deviations. The builder delivered possession of the ground floor on 2.4.1992. The builder sold the first and second floors to four persons under sale deeds dated 18.3.1992, 18.3.1992, 2.6.1995 and 2.6.1995.

of Rs.4262.64 being the charges for change of electricity meter. The District Forum dismissed the complaint by order dated 10.5.1996 as not maintainable under the Act, holding that the appellant was not a `consumer' as defined in section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act. It held that the agreement between the parties created mutual rights and obligations with a provision that in the event of breach of any condition, the affected party shall have the right of specific performance and such an agreement cannot be construed as a contract for hiring/availing a service, for consideration by a consumer.

8. The National Commission dismissed the revision petition by order dated 3.2.2004. The order extracted the relevant provisions of the agreement in extenso and then proceeded to reject the petition by merely observing that the agreement was in the nature of a joint venture and transaction did not have any element of hiring the services of the builder within the meaning of section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act and that the District Forum and the State Commission had rightly held that the appellant was not a consumer. The said order is challenged in this appeal by special leave. Legal Provisions.

24. The District Forum, the State Commission and the National Commission committed a serious error in wrongly assuming that agreements of this nature being in the nature of joint venture are outside the scope of consumer disputes.

Re : Second Question

28. The District Forum and National Commission did not examine the matter with reference to facts. The State Commission held that the complaint was not maintainable but purported to consider the factual question in a half-hearted and casual manner. The matter will now have to go back to District Forum for deciding the matter on merits. We, accordingly, allow this appeal as follows :

...............................J [R. V. Raveendran] ..............................J [Lokeshwar Singh Panta] New Delhi.

July 10, 2008
State Of Rajasthan vs Gulab Singh & Ors

In the course of the investigation the investigating officer recorded the statement of the complainant Prakash Chand. The injured Dali Chand was admitted in the hospital at Rajsamand and Udaipur for treatment. His injury report exh.P-4 was received. His x-ray was also conducted. After 3 inspection of the place of the incident, spot memo exh.P-14 was prepared. The panchayatnama memo of the dead body of the deceased Jyotibai Exh.P-1 was prepared. The clothes which had been used to tie the hands and the mouth of the deceased were having blood on them and, therefore, they were seized as evidence vide exh. P-7. After conducting the post mortem of the dead body of the deceased the report Exh.P-3 was taken on record. Her dead body was handed over to her heirs for cremation vide Exh.P-2. From the place of the incident bloodstained stones and control sample stones were seized in respect whereof exh.P-8 was prepared. Statements of the witnesses were recorded. A list of stolen articles was prepared. Chance prints were taken from the place of the incident. Accused Gulab Singh, Uday Singh, Nathu Singh and Laxman Singh were arrested. Gold and silver articles along with cash of Rs.24,400/- were recovered at their instance. Thereafter, jewellery was recovered at the instance of accused Dhool Singh and Shambu Singh. In this regard exhs. P-10 to Exh.P-13 were prepared. The place of the incident was pointed out by the accused in respect whereof exhs. P-49 to 52 was 4 prepared. The accused were identified by the witness-Dali Chand and thereafter the seized case property in the case were also identified in respect whereof exh. P-67 to 72 were prepared. Bloodstained clothes and stones were sent for FSL examination to Forensic Sciences Laboratory Udaipur. The place of the incident was photographed. After necessary investigation sufficient evidence was found against accused Gulab Singh, Uday Singh, Nathu Singh for offences punishable under Sections 460, 458, 302 IPC and against accused Dhool Singh, Moti Singh, Shambu Singh for offences under Sections 414, 411, 120B IPC. The station in charge, Raj Nagar filed a charge sheet against the above named accused persons before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajsamand. Case was committed to the Court of Sessions.

9. The appeal is allowed.

...............................J. 8 (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT) ...............................J. (P. SATHASIVAM) New Delhi, July 10, 2008 9
Bhupinder Singh vs U.T. Chandigarh

3. Though in SLP (Crl.) No.6796 of 2006, notice has not been issued, at the request of and with the consent of the parties, the same was taken up along with SLP (Crl.) No.1411 of 2007 where notice had been issued.

5. The prosecution version, as unfolded during trial, is as follows:

6. The High Court referred to the evidence of the witnesses, more particularly, Harvardhan (PW2), the Registrar, Births & Death, U.T. of Chandigarh wherein it was recorded that complainant Manjit Kaur had delivered a female child on 16.4.1994 in General Hospital, Sector-16, Chandigarh and accused-appellant's name was mentioned as the father. Reference was also made to the evidence of Mal Singh (PW10) in whose house the appellant and the complainant used to stay. In his statement under Section 313 of the `Code' the appellant took the stand that he started knowing the appellant after his marriage with Gurinder Kaur. The complainant was known to his wife before her marriage with him and she had come along with her mother to their place in 1988 in Sector 23, Chandigarh where her mother requested him to get her a 7 job as she had finished the studies and wanted to get a job. The complainant stayed in their house for six months. Thereafter, he arranged a job for her. However, she had shifted and being of loose morals, entertained many people. When he learnt that she was of loose morals and was going out with different persons at odd hours, he objected and told the complainant to mend her ways. But she started fighting with him and demanded money which he does not pay and, after delivery of the child, she filed a false complaint. Gurinder Kaur (PW 20) stated that he knew the complainant prior to her marriage. Documents were also produced to show that in official documents, accused-appellant had shown the complainant as his wife and nominee.
Vasant M Mehendale vs Ashok Anant Temkar & Ors

A complaint was filed against the appellants of these three appeals before the Bar Council of Maharashtra for taking disciplinary action, which dismissed the complaint on merit. Against the said order, when the case was taken in appeal to the Bar Council of India [for short, `the B.C.I.'], the matter has been remitted to the Bar Council of Maharashtra. Aggrieved by the said order, these appeals have been filed.

It has been stated, at the Bar, that, during the pendency of these appeals, Shri G.D. Sakpal, who was the appellant in Civil Appeal No.3857 of 2006, has expired. In view of this, we feel that the impugned order of remand in relation to him would be futile. Accordingly, Civil Appeal No.3857 of 2006 is allowed and the order of remand in ....2/-

relation to Shri G.D. Sakpal is set aside, but this will not in any manner affect the order of remand in relation to the appellants in other two appeals as, in our view, the B.C.I. has not committed any error in remanding the matter to the Bar Council of Maharashtra. With the aforesaid observations, Civil Appeal Nos.3550 of 2006 and 3552 of 2006 are dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.

Needless to say that any observation made in the impugned order by the B.C.I. shall not in any manner prejudice case of any of the parties while hearing the complaint upon remand.