L-NLProc/TathyaNyaya-and-FactLegalLlama-NyayaScrape-Datasets huggingface dataset:
Siriya @ Shri Lal vs State Of M.P

3. The High Court affirmed the conviction and the sentence.

4. Sans unnecessary details the background facts are as follows:

Appellant then took the prosecutrix to a dilapidated house situated there and removed the clothes of the prosecutrix. When the prosecutrix cried, the appellant slapped her and forcibly committed rape on her. At that time, three persons- witnesses Kamarjeet, Promod and Suresh who were passing by, heard the shrieks of the prosecutrix, went inside the room and separated the appellant from the prosecutrix. Then, these witnesses took the prosecutrix and the appellant to the police station Vijaypur where the prosecutrix (PW-4) lodged the first information report (Ex. P-4) against the appellant. The prosecutrix (PW-4) was sent for medical examination. Dr. Chhaya Shrama (PW-2) examined the .prosecutrix and found that her sexual character had started developing, pubic hairs were scanty and on internal examination, found old hymen ruptured at 11 o'clock position including the redness over it's posterior side. On the basis of this examination, the doctor 3 opined that possibility of rape could not be denied. The vaginal swab of the prosecutrix was prepared and the panty of the prosecutrix was taken by the doctor and the same was sealed and handed over to the police for chemical examination. For confirmation of the age of the prosecutrix, her x-ray was taken and as per the x-ray report (Ex.P-1) the age of the prosecutrix was found above 17 years and below 19 years. The appellant was arrested and he was also sent for medical examination. According to his medical report (Ex.P-3), the appellant was found competent to perform sexual intercourse. Thus, according to the prosecution, the appellant committed rape on the prosecutrix (PW-4), who is his own daughter. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed. After committal of the case, charge under Section 376(1) of I.P.C. was framed against the appellant.

13. Looked at from any angle the appeal is without merit and deserves to be dismissed which we direct.
Ganga Devi vs Distt. Judge, Nainital & Ors

Khyali Ram, the husband of the appellant, was a tenant therein. He died leaving behind the appellant (his wife) and two daughters Smt. Hema Tiwari and Smt. Deepa Joshi. They are married. They have no concern with the shop in question.

(a) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. The said application was dismissed, inter alia, on the premise that applicants on a shop other than the shop in question holding:

4. The Appellate Authority, however, reversed the said order holding that respondent No.3 was in bona fide need of the said shop for the purposes of carrying out an independent business.

19. In the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the opinion, that six months' time should be granted to the 1st respondent to vacate the premises, which should serve the ends of justice. It is directed accordingly.

Subject to the aforementioned directions, this appeal is dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of this case, there shall be no order as to costs.

May 13, 2008
Fatma Bibi Ahmed Patel vs State Of Gujarat & Anr

3. Son of the appellant Hanif Ahmed Patel was married to the complainant - respondent on 22.4.2002. Appellant indisputably is a citizen 2 of Mauritius. Her son and daughter-in-law at all material times were residing at Kuwait.

A Complaint Petition, however, was filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Navsari by the said respondent alleging physical and mental torture by her husband (the first accused). Allegations primarily against the appellant therein were that the first accused used to consult her and she used to instigate him.

As the couple was residing at Kuwait, indisputably the entire cause of action arose at Kuwait. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Navsari, however, took cognizance of the aforesaid offences and directed issuance of summons to the appellant by an order dated 30.5.2003.

Appellant, however, filed a fresh application on or about 6.12.2004 raising a contention that as she is a citizen of Mauritius and as the entire cause of action took place at Kuwait, the order taking cognizance is bad in 3 law. Whereas the learned trial judge rejected the said plea, the Revisional Court on a revision application filed by the appellant thereagainst, allowed the same.

6. For the reasons aforementioned, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained. It is set aside accordingly. The appeal is allowed with costs. Counsel's fee assessed at Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only).

May 13, 2008
State Of Uttarnchal & Anr vs Madan Joshi & Anr

4. Pursuant to and in furtherance of the said Rules, services of 355 ad hoc Lecturers were regularized. However, the cases of nine Lecturers including the first respondent, who had been working on deputation, were left out. It is contended that one Savita (Mohan) Dhondiyal who had also been appointed as an ad hoc Lecturer on 17.4.1975 and, thus, being junior to the first respondent was regularized.

5. Representations were made by the respondents and others. The Directorate of Higher Education, Uttar Pradesh asked the Vice- Chancellor of the University to forward the list of the said Lecturers pursuant whereto, services of nine Lecturers including the respondent were regularized by an order dated 11.7.1980, stating :

6. Aggrieved by the said order, they made a representation.

7. By an order dated 9.6.1988, the services of the respondent were appointed with effect from 1.7.1983, it was stated :

20. For the reasons aforementioned, we are of the opinion that the interest of justice would be subserved if the impugned judgment is set aside and the matter is remitted to the High Court for consideration of the matter afresh. In the writ petition, the first respondent may file an appropriate application for impleading Savita (Mohan) Dhondyal and 13 others as parties and/or some teachers in their representative capacity. The High Court is requested to allow the said application for impleadment and determine the matter in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, preferably within the period of 8 weeks of the communication of this Order.

21. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Central Bank Of India & Anr vs Nripendra Nath Sarkar

Brief facts which are necessary to dispose of this appeal are as under:-

The appellant-Bank instead of complying with the directions of the Division Bench has again approached this court.

In the facts and circumstances of this case, the observations made in the impugned judgment are absolutely just and fair. The Appellate Authority is directed to carry out the direction given by the learned 9 Single Judge and the Division Bench in its true spirits. We find no infirmity in the directions given by the Division Bench in the impugned judgment.

The appellant instead of approaching this court ought to have complied with the directions of the Division Bench. This appeal being devoid of any merit is dismissed with costs.

May 13, 2008 10
K. Raghunandan & Ors vs Ali Hussain Sabir & Ors

4. A map was annexed to the consent terms. All the properties shown in the red were accepted to be the properties of the plaintiffs and the 3 defendants had allegedly agreed not to interfere with their possession. It was stated that a passage running from north to south connecting Mukarramjahi Road was shown to be the exclusive property of the plaintiffs. It was furthermore alleged that the respondents' father was a tenant in the premises bearing No. 5-4-412. The said property was purchased by the respondent No. 1 in a public auction held on 8.11.1957. The extent of the land which was the subject matter is in dispute.

5. Respondents admittedly had constructed shops on Moajamjahi road with a huge opening on the main road. The defendants despite the said consent terms made attempt to fix an old door on the eastern side of their wall making an opening on the purported private passage belonging to the appellants.

7. Respondents filed a suit for perpetual injunction which was marked as O.S. No. 1132 of 1993, and renumbered as O.S. No. 769 of 1994, seeking injunction against the appellants from interfering with their usage of the passage. It was alleged that the appellants tampered with the plan by adding the word "plaintiffs" above the word "passage" in the plan.

10. Two Letters Patent Appeals were preferred thereagainst by the appellants, which have been dismissed by reason of the impugned judgment inter alia on the premise that the compromise decree being not registered, no claim relying on or on the basis thereof could form the basis of the suit.

The said decisions, therefore, cannot be said to have any application in the present case.

The appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs. Counsel's fee assessed at Rs. 25,000/-.

May 14, 2008
Arjan Singh vs Punit Ahluwalia & Ors

The issues in both the suits being identical, parties led similar evidence in both the suits. The principal defendant, Dr. Bawa, however, did not lead evidence.

3. The suit filed by Mr. Sanjeev Sharma was referred to the Lok Adalat. However, no settlement was arrived at.

4. The High Court, however, while exercising its revisional jurisdiction by reason of the impugned judgment, set aside the said order of the learned Judge on the premise that it is the first part of Order 23 Rule 3 which was applicable in the case. It was opined that as the interim order was not extended, the question of execution of any deed of sale in violation of the said order of injunction did not arise.

16. We agree with the High Court on this issue. If the order of injunction was operative upto a particular date, technically the order of injunction shall not remain operative thereafter. The owner of the land 14 Dr. Bawa and the defendant No. 2 Sanjeev Sharma, thus, could have entered into the compromise.

21. For the reasons aforementioned, the impugned judgment is set aside to the aforementioned extent. The appeal is allowed in part. In the facts and circumstances of the case, Respondent No.2 and 3 must bear the costs of the appellant. Counsel's fee assessed at Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only).

May 14, 2008
Rabindra Singh vs Financial Commnr.Cooperation,Punjab ...

2. A suit for partition was filed by Kulwant Singh, the respondent No.4 herein against the appellant as also the other respondents. The said suit was decreed ex-parte against the appellant. He had been residing in Houston, Texas, in the United State of America for more than 25 years. He had never been served with any notice, although respondent No.4 had full knowledge of his correct address.

7. A revision petition filed before the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, was dismissed by his order dated 28th August, 2002.

23. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the courts below ought to have held that the appellant had been able to establish sufficient cause for an order setting aside the ex-parte decree.

26. For the reasons aforementioned, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained. It is set aside accordingly. However, we, in exercise of our 15 jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India direct that the appellant must file his written statement within four weeks from date. Copies of deposition of witnesses examined, if any, may be supplied to lawyer of the appellant within the aforementioned period. The said witnesses would be offered for cross-examination by the appellant soon thereafter. Parties shall not take any adjournment on the dates fixed, save and except for sufficient and cogent reasons. The Court shall fix such dates which may be convenient to the appellant and, if possible, the hearing of the case may be taken up on day to day basis.

27. This appeal is allowed with the aforementioned observations and directions. In the facts and circumstances of this case, there shall be no order as to costs.
Subramaniaswamy Temple, Ratnagiri vs V. Kanna Goundar(Dead) By Lrs

7. An appeal suit was preferred. At the same time, pursuant to the observations made by the District Court in its judgment dated 20.11.1985, a suit was instituted. The suit was decreed. An appeal preferred thereagainst was also dismissed. Respondent filed a second appeal which was marked as Second Appeal No.800 of 1994 which was tagged with the second appeal preferred by the appellant being Second Appeal No.752 of 1997. Both the appeals were taken up for hearing together. By reason of the impugned judgment whereas the Second Appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed, that of the respondent was allowed holding that appellant had failed to prove any title over the said land by way of patta or otherwise as also the fact that possession had been delivered in its favour by the State.

14. For the reasons aforementioned, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained. It is set aside accordingly. Appeals are allowed. No costs.
Ram Avadh & Ors vs Ram Das & Ors

2.This case has a chequered history, which would be clear from the following facts leading to the filing of this appeal.

The appellants alleged that by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 21st of May, 1969, they are the vendees of = of the land in Khata No. 98 (in short "the suit property") recorded in the name of the vendors viz., Bhagirati, Putai, Ram Newaj, Matadin, Bachai and Ram Avadh alias Avadhu (in short "Bhagirati & ors.") who are co-tenure holders with the respondents. A notification under Section 4 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (in short "the Act") was issued for consolidation operation. The appellants filed objections under Section 9(2) of the Act before the Consolidation Officer for recording their names in place of Bhagirati & ors. in the revenue records contending that they had obtained the registered sale deed dated 21st of May, 1969 but by mistake of the Lekhpal, their names could not be recorded in the revenue records. 2 The respondents also filed objections claiming that Bhagirati & ors. or their father Faqir had no share in the suit property and that the suit property belonged to one Sanehi exclusively and therefore, Bhagirati & Ors. did not have any right to sell the same. Accordingly, the respondents strongly contested the case of the appellants who prayed for inclusion of their names in place of Bhagirati & Ors.

By an order dated 15th of March 1970, the Consolidation Officer allowed the objections of the appellants and directed that their names be recorded against the suit property. The respondents preferred an appeal under section 11(1) of the Act before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation but the same was dismissed by the order dated 18th of December, 1970. Feeling aggrieved, the respondents filed a revision under Section 48 of the Act before the Assistant Director - Consolidation, which was allowed by an order dated 16th of August 1971. Against this order passed in revision, the 3 appellants filed a writ petition being WP No. 1797 of 1971 and the same was allowed on 14th of November, 1978 and the matter remanded to the Assistant Director - Consolidation for deciding the revision afresh. The Assistant Director Consolidation allowed the revision this time also by his order dated 20th of February 1981. Feeling aggrieved, the appellants filed a writ petition before the High Court being 2016 of 1981, which, however, was dismissed by the judgment and order dated 22nd of May 1998. It is this decision of the High Court, which is now impugned in this appeal.

Let us first look at the findings of the High Court relying on which the writ petition of the appellants was dismissed. The findings are as under: -

As noted herein earlier, the High Court dismissed the writ petition of the appellants on the above findings and affirmed the decision 7 and the findings of the Assistant Director-

13.For the reasons aforesaid, we set aside the judgment of the High Court and the Revisional Court and affirm the decisions of the Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer, Consolidation. The appeal is thus allowed. There will be no order as to costs.
Ghaziabad Development Authority vs Ved Prakash Aggarwal

2. The dispute in this appeal pertains to the allotment of certain land by the GDA in its Govindpuram Scheme. In the complaint filed before the MRTP Commission by the respondent, it was alleged that the GDA had first allotted certain land to him and after many years, cancelled the allotment arbitrarily. The respondent also claimed the refund of the invested amount. Challenging the cancellation of allotment as arbitrary and also for refund of the invested money, a proceeding was initiated at the instance of the respondent before the MRTP Commission alleging that the cancellation of the allotment by the GDA was not only arbitrary but also indicative of its monopolistic hold on the land and therefore, it amounted to an unfair trade 3 practice under the MRTP Act. The GDA entered appearance and denied the allegations made in the complaint, inter alia, alleging that no specific allotment order was made by the GDA and, therefore, cancellation of the same did not arise at all. It was further stated by the GDA in their written objection to the complaint that the long delay was attributable to the fact that the scheme was tied up in litigation for many years and when that litigation was over, the draw prescribed for allotment of land was held. Since the respondent had failed in this draw, the allotment of the land could not be made and therefore, the refund was offered. After hearing the parties and on the basis of the available records, the MRTP Commission held that the land was indeed allotted to the respondent and the cancellation of the respondent's allotment when other allottees had been given the plots in the same 4 circumstances amounted to an "unfair trade practice" under Section 36 of the MRTP Act. The MRTP Commission also held that the respondent had suffered pecuniary losses and damages. Based on these findings, the MRTP Commission directed the GDA to allot 90 sq. mtrs. of plot to the respondent in Govindpuram Scheme and in case the plot was not available, to hand over the possession of vacant plot of the same size to the respondent in other schemes nearby the Govindpuram Scheme at the previously decided price. Feeling aggrieved by this order, the GDA has come up in appeal in this Court.

4. Before we go into these questions, we may, at this stage, narrate certain other facts also, which would be required for decision in this appeal. In October 1988, the GDA had floated a housing scheme the particulars of which are reproduced as under.

8.In this view of the matter and in view of the foregoing reasons, we consider it appropriate to remand this appeal to the MRTP Commission 12 for decision afresh on the compensation, which may be given to the respondent in accordance with law along with refund of the amount deposited by the respondent with the GDA with simple interest. The appeal is thus allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs.

May 14,2008.
Tikka Ram & Anr vs Kartara (D) By Lrs. & Ors

2 & 3 by filing suit for pre-emption claiming their superior right to purchase the suit property. In the suit, Smt. Kishni, Kartara and Surta were arrayed as defendants. Kartara and Surta, respondents 1 & 2 herein, contested the suit on the ground that the sale has been effected by a female and, therefore, is not pre-emptible under Section 15(2) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act. On 22.1.1983, the sub-Judge Ist Class, Karnal dismissed the suit. Aggrieved thereby, the plaintiffs/pre-emptors filed Civil Appeal No. 33/13 of 1983 in 2 the Court of Additional District Judge, Karnal. By order dated 22.9.1984, the first appellate Court allowed the appeal and reversed the judgment and decree dated 22.1.1983 of the sub- Judge, First Class, Karnal. Against the said order, the Vendees/respondent Nos. 1 & 2 herein filed R.S.A. No. 2709 of 1984 in the High Court. The High Court, by order dated 23.4.2004, allowed the appeal and set aside the order dated 22.9.1984 passed by the Additional District Judge, Karnal. Questioning the said order, the plaintiffs/pre-emptors have filed this appeal by way of special leave.

emption against the vendor and the vendees. On 22.1.1983, the trial Court dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellants herein filed C.A. No. 39/13 of 1983 in the Court of Additional District Judge, Karnal and the same was partially allowed in favour of appellants 1 & 2 (Pre- emptors) and against respondents 2-5 (vendees) on 22.9.1984. Questioning the said order, the vendees/defendants filed R.S.A. No. 2710 of 1984 in the High Court. The High Court allowed the appeal on 23.4.2004. Against the said order, the appellants have filed this appeal by way of special leave.

15) In the light of the above discussion, we are satisfied that the High Court has considered all the relevant aspects and rightly set aside the judgment and decree of the first Appellate Court and restored that of the trial Court. Consequently, both the appeals fail and are accordingly dismissed. No costs.

May 14, 2008.
Jagdish vs State Of U.P. And Ors

3. Our attention has been drawn to the fact that one of the Judges of the Allahabad High Court by an order dated 17.4.2007 refused to grant bail to the accused 'Johny' stating :

5. Our attention was, furthermore, drawn to the fact that even during the trial, the respondents have been threatening the appellant and his family members. Our attention in this behalf has been drawn to a report filed on 9.2.2008 under Sections 107/116 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as also the First Information Report, lodged during the pendency of this special leave petition, in relation to an occurrence which took place at about 9.00 a.m. on 2.5.2008, alleging that threat of causing death and injury to the father and brother of Vikram has been extended by Neetu and others which amounted to commit offence under Section 506 of the IPC.

10. We, therefore, are of the opinion that although it is not necessary to interfere with the impugned judgments at this stage, interest of justice demands that if the prosecution witnesses have not been examined, they may be given requisite protection if any occasion arises therefor.

13. The appeals are dismissed with the aforementioned observation.