L-NLProc/TathyaNyaya-and-FactLegalLlama-NyayaScrape-Datasets huggingface dataset:
Speaker, Orissa Legislative Assembly vs Utkal Keshari Parida

3. The Appellant herein is the Speaker of the Orissa Legislative Assembly. There were four elected members of the National Congress Party (NCP) in the Orissa Legislative Assembly. All the said four elected members of the NCP joined the Biju Janata Dal (BJD), which is the Ruling Party in the State of Orissa. On account of such defection, Respondent, Shri Utkal Keshari Parida, who is the President of the State Unit of the NCP in the State of Orissa, filed four separate Disqualification Petitions before the Appellant for disqualification of the said four elected members of the NCP. The Disqualification Petitions were placed before the Appellant on 24.07.2012 and copies thereof were forwarded to the concerned Members of the Legislative Assembly, in terms of Rule 7(3) of the 1987 Rules.

20. We, accordingly, dismiss all the appeals and uphold the judgment of the High Court impugned therein.

21. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.

...................CJI.
Shyam Lal Verma vs C.B.I

The appellant is a retired employee of Post Office. The incident occurred in 1993-94. The allegation against him is that he misappropriated to the extent of Rs.1,35,240/- (Rupees one lakh thirty five thousand and two hundred forty). The employees of various departments deposited their amount, but the appellant did not remit the amount and failed to make entry in the ledger. He was charged under Section 477-A IPC read with Section 3(1)(c) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988.

In view of the settled legal position, we find no valid ground to interfere with the impugned order of the High Court. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed.

In view of the dismissal of the appeal, the appellant shall surrender and has to undergo remaining period of sentence. His bail bonds executed pursuant to our order dated 05.07.2012 shall stand cancelled.
Rajiv Kapoor & Anr vs Karan Pal Singh

7. The appellant had filed the aforesaid writ petition, inter alia questioning the intimation issued by the respondent about his date of retirement. Since the appellant was to retire on 31.01.2012, the Court, after hearing the parties, had passed the order dated 30.01.2012. The operative portion of the order reads as under:

13. All the other contentions raised by both the parties are left open.

Ordered accordingly.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 606 OF 2013 (@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION(C.) NO.24459 OF 2012) MANOJ KUMAR SINGH & ANR. APPELLANTS VERSUS RAJENDRA SINGH RESPONDENT WITH C.A. NO. 607/2013 @ S.L.P.(C) NO.24461/2012 AND C.A. NO. 608/2013 @ S.L.P.(C) NO.25292/2012 O R D E R

7. Since the respondents have retired from service before the approval of the Resolution by the State Government, in our view, the High Court ought not to have passed the impugned order(s) and direction(s). In that view of the matter, we allow these appeals and set aside the directions issued by the High Court.

8. However, we permit the respondents-herein to question the correctness or otherwise of the orders passed by the State Government, if they so desire, within 15 days' time from today. If such petitions are filed by the respondents before the High Court within the time granted, we request the High Court to dispose of the petitions on merits without reference to the period of limitation.

9. All the other contentions raised by both the parties is left open.

Ordered accordingly.

JANUARY 21, 2013.

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).24200/2012 (From the judgment and order dated 10.07.2012 OF THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH IN CONTEMPT PETN.NO.1239 OF 2012) RAJIV KAPOOR & ANR. Petitioner(s) VERSUS KARAN PAL SINGH Respondent(s) (With prayer for interim relief and office report ) WITH SLP(C) NO. 24459 of 2012 SLP(C) NO. 24461 of 2012 (With appln.(s) for permission to place addl.documents on record and with prayer for interim relief and office report) SLP(C) NO. 25292 of 2012 (With appln.(s) for permission to place addl.documents on record and office report) Date: 21/01/2013 These Petitions were called on for hearing today.

CORAM :
Satya Nand Munjal vs Commr Of Gift Tax

3. The High Court set aside the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) and held in favour of the Commissioner of Gift Tax by upholding the assessment order. It is in these circumstances that the assessee is now before us.

4. For convenience, we refer to the facts in the case of Satya Nand Munjal. The facts:

5. On 20th February 1982 the assessee, being the absolute owner of 6000 fully paid up equity shares of the face value of Rs. 25 each of M/s Hero Cycles (P) Ltd. executed a deed of revocable transfer in favour of M/s Yogesh Chandra and Brothers Associates (the transferee). Under the deed, the assessee could, on completion of 74 months from the date of transfer but before the expiry of 82 months from the said date, exercise the power of revoking the gift. In other words, the assessee left a window of 8 months within which the gift could be revoked.

19. The assessee then took up the matter with the Tribunal which held in its order dated 23rd May 2000 that in view of the assessment to gift tax made in respect of the assessee for the Assessment Year 1982-83, the notice issued under Section 16(1) of the Act was merely a change of opinion and, as such the reassessment proceedings could not have been taken up. On the merits of the case, it was noted that neither the dividend income on the bonus shares nor their value had been taxed in the hands of the assessee. Consequently, the assessee was liable to succeed on the merits of the case also. The gift tax reassessment was accordingly quashed by the Tribunal.

20. The Revenue then came up in appeal before the High Court with the substantial question of law mentioned above.

28. Under the circumstances we have no option but remand the matter for de novo consideration by the High Court keeping in mind the provisions of Section 4(1)(c) of the Act as well as the orders passed in the case of the assessee for the Assessment Year 1982-83. We do so accordingly.

29. In view of the above, both the Civil Appeals are allowed and the impugned judgment and order of the High Court is set aside but without any order as to costs.

30. We make it clear that the parties are entitled to raise all contentions before the High Court and are at liberty to file additional documents, if necessary.

January 22, 2013
State Of Haryana & Ors vs Rubber Reclaim Co.Of India (P) Ltd.&Anr

7. After receipt of the reply to the show cause notice issued, the Assessing Authority has passed the order dated 31.1.1997 by confirming the show cause notice issued earlier. In the order passed, the Assessing Authority has stated that the respondent industry has availed tax exemption from 20.04.1991 to 07.09.1995 for Rs.2,21,87,594/- but made sales outside the State of Haryana by way of transfer of goods manufactured by it and therefore, the industry has contravened the provisions of Rule 28A(11)(a)(ii) of the Rules.

15. The High Court while allowing the petition filed by the assessee has proceeded on a wrong assumption, that, the assessing authority has levied tax on inter-State sales and on consignment transfer and accordingly has quashed the assessment order passed by the assessing authority. In view of our conclusion stated earlier, we cannot sustain the judgment and order passed by the High Court. Accordingly, we allow this appeal and set aside the impugned order.

Ordered accordingly.

3. The facts in extenso need not be noticed by us. Suffice it to state that the appellants are before us aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil Writ Petition No.6688 of 1999 (O&M), dated 31.03.2010. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has set aside the order of assessment passed by the assessing authority, wherein the assessee was directed to refund the amount which was availed by way of tax exemption/deferment of tax under the exemption scheme.

Provided that the provisions of this clause shall not come into play if the loss in production is explained to the satisfaction of the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner concerned as being due to the reasons beyond the control of the units:

14. The High Court while allowing the petition filed by the assessee has proceeded on a wrong assumption, that, the assessing authority has levied tax on inter-state sales and on consignment transfer and accordingly has quashed the assessment order passed by the assessing authority. In view of our conclusion stated earlier, we cannot sustain the judgment and order passed by the High Court. Accordingly, we allow this appeal and set aside the impugned order.

JANUARY 23, 2013.
State Of Haryana & Ors vs Rubber Reclaim Co.Of India (P) ...

7. After receipt of the reply to the show cause notice issued, the Assessing Authority has passed the order dated 31.1.1997 by confirming the show cause notice issued earlier. In the order passed, the Assessing Authority has stated that the respondent industry has availed tax exemption from 20.04.1991 to 07.09.1995 for Rs.2,21,87,594/- but made sales outside the State of Haryana by way of transfer of goods manufactured by it and therefore, the industry has contravened the provisions of Rule 28A(11)(a)(ii) of the Rules.

15. The High Court while allowing the petition filed by the assessee has proceeded on a wrong assumption, that, the assessing authority has levied tax on inter-State sales and on consignment transfer and accordingly has quashed the assessment order passed by the assessing authority. In view of our conclusion stated earlier, we cannot sustain the judgment and order passed by the High Court. Accordingly, we allow this appeal and set aside the impugned order.

Ordered accordingly.

3. The facts in extenso need not be noticed by us. Suffice it to state that the appellants are before us aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil Writ Petition No.6688 of 1999 (O&M), dated 31.03.2010. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has set aside the order of assessment passed by the assessing authority, wherein the assessee was directed to refund the amount which was availed by way of tax exemption/deferment of tax under the exemption scheme.

Provided that the provisions of this clause shall not come into play if the loss in production is explained to the satisfaction of the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner concerned as being due to the reasons beyond the control of the units:

14. The High Court while allowing the petition filed by the assessee has proceeded on a wrong assumption, that, the assessing authority has levied tax on inter-state sales and on consignment transfer and accordingly has quashed the assessment order passed by the assessing authority. In view of our conclusion stated earlier, we cannot sustain the judgment and order passed by the High Court. Accordingly, we allow this appeal and set aside the impugned order.

JANUARY 23, 2013.
M/S Atlas Cycle (Haryana) Ltd vs Kitab Singh

3) Brief facts:

(a) In the year 1977, Kitab Singh – respondent herein was employed by the appellant-Company on piece rate basis in the Packing Department. On 28.11.1988, respondent was charge- sheeted for committing theft of goods belonging to the appellant-Company for which a written explanation dated 12.10.1989 was submitted by the respondent seeking pardon and assuring that he would not indulge in any such misconduct in future. This was accepted by the appellant-Company.

(b) On 01.10.1992, respondent submitted his resignation citing domestic circumstances and the appellant-Company accepted the resignation on the same day.

(c) On 07.10.1992, respondent wrote a letter to the Chief Minister of Haryana, leveling certain allegations against the management of the appellant-Company. In that letter, he alleged that on 30.09.1992, in the evening after finishing his duty, when he went to the puncture shop outside the factory to collect his scooter, which he had left in the morning, the security guard accused him of taking stolen goods in a bag. He further alleged that he was beaten up, given electric shock and forced to write the resignation letter and thereafter, left him in his home in an unconscious condition. It was further stated in that letter that when the respondent had gone to the factory in the morning of 01.10.1992, he was not allowed to enter.

(e) The State Government, vide letter dated 11.01.1993, rejected his request for a Reference on the ground that he himself had resigned from the job after submitting resignation.

(f) Aggrieved by the said reply, respondent filed a Writ Petition being CWP No. 10642 of 1993 before the High Court praying for referring the dispute to the Labour Court. The High Court allowed the same with a direction to the State Government to refer the matter to the Labour Court for adjudication.

(i) The Labour Court, by order dated 02.02.2005, dismissed the Reference and the Claim Statement of the respondent.

(j) Aggrieved by the said order, on 07.08.1995, respondent filed a Petition being Civil Writ Petition No. 11450 of 1995 before the High Court. Learned single Judge, by order dated 09.01.2008 set aside the Award of the Labour Court and directed the appellant-Company to reinstate the respondent in service with 25% back wages.

12) On going through the entire reasoning of the Labour Court, materials placed and stand taken by the workman and the Management, we are satisfied that the learned single Judge was fully justified in interfering with the conclusion arrived at by the Labour Court which has been rightly affirmed by the Division Bench. Consequently, the appeal of the Management fails and the same is dismissed with costs quantified at Rs.10,000/-.

JANUARY 24, 2013.
Lala Ram (D) By L.R. & Ors vs Union Of India And Anr

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

In view of the above, the appeals succeed and are allowed partly, to the extent that notice dated 25.5.1987 must not be applied retrospectively, i.e., w.e.f. 7-8-1980. However, the enhanced license fee may be recovered from the appellants from the said date in accordance with law.

With these observations, the appeals stand disposed of. Interim order passed earlier stands vacated.

CA Nos.268-279, 263-266 & 248-262 of 2003 The abovesaid Civil Appeals stand disposed of in terms of the judgment passed in Civil Appeal Nos.243-247 of 2003.
Anil & Anr vs State Of Maharashtra

2. The prosecution case rests on the evidence of PW-3 Meena, wife of Vijay Lambat (“the deceased”). On 13/12/1991 at 22:25 hours, she is stated to have lodged FIR at Wardha City Police Station. In her FIR, she stated that the deceased was a driver. On 13/12/1991, in the evening, she and the deceased were at their house. At about 8.00 p.m., A1-Anil, A2-Ashok and A5- Shankar came to their house. They gave her money and asked her to bring liquor. At that time, the deceased was sleeping. She sent her son to the neighbour’s house to bring liquor. When he brought liquor, they consumed it. Thereafter, they asked the deceased to accompany them for paan. The deceased told them that he was not well. Even then, they forced him to get up. They brought him out in the courtyard. In the courtyard, A1-Anil and A2- Ashok dealt knife blows on his abdomen. Her mother-in-law A6-Mayabai was holding the deceased. On account of knife blows, the deceased fell on the spot. When she rushed to help the deceased, she was pushed aside by holding her hair. She then rushed to the Wardha City Police Station and lodged the FIR. The deceased was shifted to the General Hospital, Wardha where he was declared dead. On completion of the investigation, the accused came to be charged as aforesaid.

3. In support of its case, the prosecution examined seven witnesses. The accused stated that they were innocent. They claimed to be tried. On behalf of the accused, it was suggested that A1-Anil and A2-Ashok used to visit the house of A6-Mayabai, the mother of the deceased, which was resented by the deceased and his wife PW3-Meena. It was suggested that A3- Baba may have murdered the deceased. Upon perusal of evidence learned Sessions Judge acquitted A1-Anil, A2-Ashok, A4-Kishor, A5-Shankar and A6- Mayabai of the offences punishable under Sections 147, 143 and 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC. He also acquitted A4-Kishor, A5-Shankar and A6- Mayabai of the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC. He found the appellants, A1-Anil and A2-Ashok guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC and sentenced them to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each and, in default, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one month each. The appeal carried by A1-Anil and A2-Ashok was dismissed by the High Court and, hence, this appeal is filed by them.

10. In the result, the appeal is allowed. Impugned judgment and order is quashed and set aside. The appellants Anil s/o. Shamrao Sute and Ashok s/o. Motiram Kudewal are in jail. They are directed to be released from custody forthwith unless they are required in some other case.
Laxmibai (Dead) Thru Lr'S. & Anr vs Bhagwanthbuva (Dead) Thru Lr'S. & Ors

2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are :

16. Undoubtedly, the court while construing a document, is under an obligation to examine the true purport of the document and draw an inference with respect to the actual intention of the parties. The adoption deed was registered on 11.5.1971, and the same provided complete details stating that the adopted child was 8 years of age, and that the adoptive mother was an old lady of 70 years of age. The adoptive child was related to Smt. Laxmibai. Her husband had expired in 1951 and it had been his desire to adopt a son in order to perpetuate the family line and his name. The natural parents of the adoptive child had agreed to give their child in adoption, and for the purpose of the same, the requisite ceremony for a valid adoption was conducted, wherein the natural parents, Vasant Bhagwant Pandav and Smt. Sushilabai Vasantrao Pandav, placed the adoptive child in the lap of the adoptive mother, in the presence of a large number of persons, including several relatives. A religious ceremony called “Dutta Homam”, involving vedic rites was performed by a pandit, and photographs of the said occasion were also taken. Registration of the adoption deed was done on the same day, immediately after its execution, before the concerned Registrar. The adoptive mother put her thumb impression on the deed, and it was also signed by the natural parents of the child. Additionally, the deed was signed by 7 witnesses, and all the parties have been identified. The registered document when read as a whole, makes it evident that Vasant Bhagwant Pandav and Smt. Sushilabai, the natural parents of the adoptive child, have signed the same as attesting witnesses, and not as executing parties.

We are of the view that had Smt. Laxmibai moved such an application, the trial court could not have allowed it after considering the aforesaid facts.

39. Respondents/defendants did not examine any expert to discredit the testimony of their witness. The adoption had taken place on 11.5.1971, and the evidence of Binorkar (PW-2) was recorded on 7.2.1977. Thus, we are of the view that the view taken by the appellate courts is entirely impracticable and does not resonate with the attending circumstances, particularly, when the photographer (PW-

In view of the above, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The judgments and decrees of the appellate courts are set aside and judgment and decree of the trial court is restored. There shall be no order as to costs.
Lakshmi @ Bhagyalakshmi & Anr vs E. Jayaram(D) By Lr

3. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass.

4. The plaintiffs who are the present appellants filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant-respondents from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The plaintiff-appellants case was that Plaintiff No.1 is the absolute owner of the suit property consisting of a building which was purchased from Defendant No.1 on a consideration of Rs.6,000/- However, sale deed could not be registered as the registration was suspended by the Government and the defendant-respondents could not get clearance from the Urban Land Ceiling Authority. The plaintiff-appellant’s further case was that although the sale deed was not registered, the entire sale consideration was paid to Defendant No.1 by the plaintiff who was put in possession of the suit property. It was pleaded by the plaintiffs that Plaintiff No.1 leased out the suit property in favour of Defendant No.2 who is residing in the same suit property for the last 17 years. Plaintiff-appellants further case was that they approached the Bangalore Mahanagara Palike for change of kattas and, on enquiry, they learnt that Defendant No.1 with an intention to grab the property concocted a gift deed in favour of Defendant No.2, who is his wife and on that basis moved an application for change of kattas. Immediately, the plaintiffs caused a legal notice dated 09.09.2002 asking him to execute a sale deed in favour of Plaintiff No.1. The plaintiffs also caused a legal notice on Municipal authorities not to change the kattas in favour of Defendant No.2 as Defendant No.1 has no right whatsoever to gift the suit property. The plaintiffs alleged that defendants along with their henchmen came to the suit property and threatened the plaintiff-appellants of dire consequences if they do not vacate the property within three days. On account of repeated threats from the side of defendants, the plaintiffs were compelled to file a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. A separate application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC seeking an ad-interim relief restraining the defendants from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment was filed.

-----------------------