L-NLProc/TathyaNyaya-and-FactLegalLlama-NyayaScrape-Datasets huggingface dataset:
State Of Himachal Pradesh vs Karanvir

The respondent was a Post Master at Chhapang, within the Police Station Pachhad in the District of Sirmaur. One Rajbir Singh (PW-3), uncle of the respondent-accused, was at the relevant time working in the Government High School, Ramadhon. He had deposited a sum of Rs.8,000/- with the respondent-accused for purchase of National Savings Certificates. Necessary forms were also filled up by said Rajbir Singh and a receipt acknowledging the receipt of the said amount was issued to him. Although more than a month had passed but the said Rajbir Singh was not handed over any National Savings Certificate by the respondent. He, therefore, made enquiries with the postal authorities both at Rajgarh and at Nahan, whereupon he came to learn that no such National Saving Certificates had been issued. He thereafter made a complaint in that behalf, with the postal authorities. The postal authorities entrusted the matter to one Shri Brijpal Thakur (PW-4) for conducting an enquiry. The respondent having come to learn of initiation of the said enquiry, deposited a sum of Rs.4200/- in the Post Office on 30.11.1989. A further deposit of Rs.4,000/- was made by him on 11.12.1989. It is not in dispute that the excess amount of Rs.200/- was deposited by the respondent on 30.11.1989 by way of interest.

A First Information Report was lodged on 27.6.1990 at Police Station, Pachhad. During the investigation, specimen and admitted writings of the respondent were taken and sent to the handwriting expert for comparing with his writings and signatures on the receipt. The expert opined that the questioned writing and the signatures on the deposited documents tallied with the admitted signatures and writings of the respondent. The leaned Chief Judicial Magistrate, as noticed hereinbefore, found the respondent guilty of commission of an offence punishable under Section 409 IPC and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. A fine of Rs.1,000/- was also imposed upon him.

The appeal preferred by the respondent before the learned Sessions Judge, Sirmaur, also came to be dismissed. In the revision application filed by the respondent, the High Court held that as the prosecution had not been able to prove 'misappropriation' on the part of the respondent, the judgment of conviction and sentence was unsustainable.

For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained and it is set aside accordingly.

Having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case and keeping in view the fact that the respondent had deposited the entire amount before the First Information Report was lodged, we are of the opinion that the interest of justice would be subserved if any substantial punishment is not awarded. Accordingly, we impose a fine of Rs.4,000/- upon the respondent, which will be apart from the amount of fine of Rs.1,000/- imposed by the learned Trial Judge. It is directed that in default of the payment of the said amount, the respondent shall undergo simple imprisonment for three months. The appeal is thus allowed.
Howrah Mills Co. Ltd. & Anr vs Md. Shamin & Ors

J U D G M E N T (ARISING OUT OF S.L.P. (C) NO.21979 OF 2004) [with I.A. No. 4/2006 and I.A. No. 5/2006] P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, J.

2. While entertaining the writ petition, a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Calcutta granted an interim order of protection. The learned Judge found that there was prima facie failure on the part of the police to perform their duty and in the circumstances it was just and proper to issue a direction to the Superintendent of Police, Howrah to ensure that the officer in charge of the Shibpur Police Station strictly complied with the direction given to him to see to it personally that no one, in any manner, stepped into the property in question, without specific permission being granted by the appellants. The writ petition was directed to be listed for final hearing.

4. The appellants challenged this order of the Division Bench in this Court and while directing the listing of the case, this Court stayed the order of the Division Bench. Subsequently on 1.11.2004 this Court issued notice, continued the interim order of stay of operation of the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court and directed that the police protection sought for by the appellants would be given at the cost of the appellants. Thus, the protection which was granted pursuant to the direction of the learned Single Judge continued, pursuant to the order of this Court. The position now is that the protection is now being offered to the appellants on their liability to pay the costs for such protection.

11. Respondents 4 to 7 are directed to continue to give the requisite protection to the appellants in respect of the property of the first appellant - company and also to give necessary protection to enable the company to repair or renovate its boundary walls as also for construction of separate boundary walls for the plot of land proposed to be sold under the supervision of the BIFR.

13. The appeal is allowed in the above manner and the Interlocutory Applications are disposed of in the light of the directions contained above. There will be no order as to costs.
Babanrao Tukaram Ranjane vs State Of Maharashtra

2. The appellant challenges the order of the Special Judge of the Bombay High Court rejecting his application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') in C.R. No. 135 of 2002 registered at Bund Garden Police Station, Pune. The crime is one registered under the relevant provisions of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(2), 3(5) and 24 of the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as 'the MCOCA' ) The crime was originally registered on 7.6.2002 against three accused. But, as the investigation progressed, several others were brought in as accused and ultimately as on the day of making the application before the Special Court, 65 persons have been arraigned as accused and shown as arrested. The appellant is accused No. 62. The appellant was arrested on 8.12.2003.

3. It may be stated that originally the case was being investigated by the Bombay Police. But considering the persons involved and the alleged connivance of some of the officials of the Bombay Police, this Court directed the handing over of the investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter referred to as 'the CBI') and the CBI took up the investigation. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the CBI that amended charge-sheets have been filed and he complained that framing of charges is being stalled by the accused by trotting out one reason or another. Thus, though the case was ultimately posted for framing of charges to 14.3.2006, the charges had not been framed by the time the hearing of the appeal was concluded.

10. The appeal is allowed on the above terms.
State Of Punjab And Anr vs H.B. Molhotra

The respondent herein was an employee of the State of Punjab. A disciplinary proceedings is said to have been initiated against him. During the pendency of the said proceedings he expressed his intention to retire voluntarily from the services on account of his health problems. Accepting the said offer, the said disciplinary proceeding was dropped. The respondent, however, was not paid his retiral benefits. He filed a writ petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court which was marked as C.W.P. No.14907/2002. The High Court on 24.7.2003, passed the following order :

Pursuant to or in furtherance of the said order the Director, Information & Public Relations, Punjab, by an order dated 18.9.2003 accepted the respondent's offer for voluntary retirement from service w.e.f. 5.6.1969 (A.N.) stating:

In the peculiar facts and circumstance of this case, we do not think it proper to interfere with the judgment of the High Court. The appeals are dismissed. The respondent, who was appearing in person, was present in Court for a few days but he was not present on the day when the matter was taken up for hearing. The High Court has noticed that he is very aged, about 80 years by now.

Therefore, the State should bear and pay the costs of the respondent which is quantified at Rs.10,000/-. It is directed accordingly.
Panakanti Sampath Rao vs State Of A.P

The short facts are as follows:-

Being aggrieved, the appellant, besides accused Nos. 2 and 3, filed Criminal Appeal Nos.81 and 536 of 2003 under Section 374[2] of Cr.P.C. before the High Court. An appeal under Section 378[3][1] Cr.P.C. was also filed being Criminal Appeal No.536 of 2003. The Division Bench of the High Court, after hearing the parties and after perusing the evidence on record, allowed the criminal appeal as far as accused Nos.2 and 3 are concerned and dismissed the appeal of the appellant (Accused No.1). The Division Bench has also allowed the appeal filed by the State. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant (Accused No.1) has preferred the present appeal.

There is ample evidence which shows that the appellant has harassed and ill- treated the deceased for dowry and the circumstances point out that he has caused the death of the deceased. Therefore, we find the appellant (A-1) guilty of the offence under Section 302 IPC. The conviction and the sentence recorded by the learned Sessions Judge against the appellant for the other offences is also confirmed and we direct that the substantive sentence shall run concurrently. In the result, we affirm the order passed by the High Court and dismiss the appeal.

The High Court has imposed the fine of Rs.15,000/- on A-1 and ordered the payment of Rs.10,000/- as compensation to P.W.-2. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the fine imposed by the High Court is very high and we, therefore, reduce the fine from Rs.15,000/- to Rs.1,000/-. In default, he shall undergo the simple imprisonment for one week.
P. S. E. B. & Anr vs Som Nath & Ors

2. The appellant is the Punjab State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board'). The respondents are/were the employees of the Board. At the relevant point of time, the Respondents were posted at Ajnala, Ramdas, Patti, Khem Karan in the district of Amritsar and at Ferozepur, in places within a radius of 16 kms from the international border. As employees posted in the border areas within a radius of 16 km from the international border, they were paid HRA applicable to I class or A class cities in Punjab, by taking note of the special problems relating to border areas. Thus all the Respondents were getting the higher rate of HRA applicable to I Class/'A' Class cities.

3. The State Government revised the rates of HRA vide circular dated 30.8.1988, implementing the recommendations of the Third Pay Commission. The Board adopted the revised rates of HRA introduced by the State Government. By Order No.142/FIN.PRC-1988 (Finance Circular No. 11/89) dated 7.3.1989, it classified cities and towns in Punjab into four classes [Class A, Class B, Class C and Class D] and revised the rates of house rent allowance for various pay ranges admissible in different classes of cities/towns. We extract below the relevant portion of the said order dated 7.3.1989 :-

6. Some of the respondents filed writ petitions before the Punjab and Haryana High Court alleging that they were not being extended the benefit of protection of higher HRA drawn upto 31.8.1988, granted under the Circular dated 7.3.1989 and seeking a direction to the Board to pay them the protected (higher) HRA as drawn by them as on 31.8.1988. The High Court disposed of the writ petition, permitting the petitioners therein to file representation/s, and to treat the writ petition itself as the representation, if no separate representation was filed, and to dispose of the claims by a speaking order. The High Court also directed that till such orders were made, deduction of HRA shall remain stayed and no recovery shall be made from the employees. It further directed that if the representations were decided against the affected employees, the amount drawn on the basis of the said orders shall be recoverable in future.

13. We, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the impugned orders/judgments. The appeals are, therefore, dismissed.
P. S. E. B., Patiala & Anr vs Sudarshan Parshad & Ors

2. The appellant is the Punjab State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board'). The respondents are/were the employees of the Board. At the relevant point of time, the Respondents, in these appeals, were posted in the towns of Doraha and Payal situated near Ludhiana. Upto 31.8.1988, the respondents were being paid HRA as applicable to Ludhiana city (class 'A' city) in view of the proximity of those towns (Doraha and Payal) to Ludhiana, as per Board's policy that employees posted in places which were within a radius of 8 km from the periphery of a Municipal Corporation were to be paid the same HRA as applicable to those employed in places within such Municipal Corporation limits.

3. The State Government revised the rates of HRA vide circular dated 30.8.1988, implementing the recommendations of the Third Pay Commission. The Board adopted the revised rates of HRA introduced by the State Government. By Order No.142/FIN.PRC-1988 (Finance Circular No. 11/89) dated 7.3.1989, it classified the cities and towns in Punjab into four classes [Class A, Class B, Class C and Class D] and revised the rates of house rent allowance for various pay ranges admissible in different classes of cities/towns. We extract below the relevant portion of the said order dated 7.3.1989 :-

6. Some of employees of the Board filed a writ petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court alleging that they were not being extended the benefit of protection of higher HRA drawn upto 31.8.1988, granted under the Circular dated 7.3.1989 and seeking a direction to pay the protected (higher) HRA as drawn by them as on 31.8.1988. The said writ petition (W.P. No. 879/1992 Beant Singh & Ors. Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board) was disposed of by order dated 23.7.1992. We extract below the relevant portion of the said order :

8. Some employees again approached the High Court in W.P. No. 14529 and 14920 of 1994 seeking protection of higher HRA. The High Court disposed of the writ petitions, permitting the respondents herein to file representation/s, and to treat the writ petition itself as the representation, if no separate representation was filed, and to dispose of the claims by a speaking order. The High Court also directed that till such orders were made, deduction of HRA shall remain stayed and no recovery shall be made from the employees. It further directed that if the representations were decided against the affected employees, the amount drawn on the basis of the said orders shall be recoverable in future.

14. We, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the impugned orders. The appeals are, therefore, dismissed.
The Chairman, Sebi vs Shriram Mutual Fund & Anr

Shriram Mutual Fund was registered in the year 1994. It had floated 5 schemes. It conducted business through brokers associated with its sponsor in excess of the permissible limits prescribed under Regulation 25(7)(a) of the Regulations, 1996 on 12 occasions. The respondent failed to comply with the terms and conditions attached to the Certificate of Registration which are statutory in nature, as prescribed by Regulation 15 (D)(b) of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992. The instances of excess transactions conducted by the respondents are as follows:-

The Appellant-Board issued notice dated 01.04.2002 under Rule 4 of Rules, 1995 calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why an inquiry should not be held and penalty imposed under the Rules, 1995. The respondents filed a common reply before the Enquiry and Adjudicating Officer, SEBI. The Adjudicating Officer, after hearing the parties, imposed penalty of Rs. 5 lacs under Section 15E on respondent No.2 for failure to comply with Regulations 25 (7)(a) of SEBI (Mutual Funds) Regulations, 1996 with regard to routing of transactions through associate brokers.

Scheme of particular statute may be diluted in a given case.

(D) Mens rea is not essential element for imposing penalty for breach of civil obligations or liabilities..

(E) There can be two distinct liabilities, civil and criminal under the same Act.

(para 54) However, we are not in agreement with the appellate authority in respect of the reasoning given in regard to the necessity of mens rea being essential for imposing the penalty. According to us, mens rea is not essential for imposing civil penalties under the SEBI Act and Regulations."

In the result, the Civil Appeal Nos. 9523 and 9524 of 2003 are allowed and the order passed by the Securities Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai dated 21.08.2003 in Appeal Nos. 50 and 51 of 2002 are set aside. No costs.
Director (Marketing) Indian Oil Corpn. ... vs Santosh Kumar

Director (Marketing) and General Manager (Operations), Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. are the appellants before us. The respondent is a dismissed employee of the Appellant-Corporation. The respondent joined the appellant

A perusal of the order passed by the Appellate Authority would only reveal the total non-application of mind by the Appellate Authority. We, therefore, have no other option except to set-aside the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority and remit the matter for fresh disposal to the Disciplinary Authority. The Disciplinary Authority shall consider the detailed representation made by the respondent and also consider the detailed report of the Enquiry Officer and the records placed before him in its proper perspective and decide the matter afresh on merits. The Disciplinary Authority is directed to consider the entire case only on the basis of records already on record. The respondent is not permitted to place any further material or record before the Disciplinary Authority. The order passed by the High Court is set-aside for the above reason. We also set-aside the direction issued by the High Court ordering re-instatement into service with continuity in service and all consequential benefits. The Disciplinary Authority is also directed to dispose of the matter, within three months from the date of receipt of this order, after affording an opportunity to both the parties. The Civil Appeal is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.
Groupe Chimique Tunisien Sa vs Southern Petrochemicals Industries ...

2. The facts, in brief, as stated by petitioner are as follows:

11. The next question is whether the respondent has lost its right to appoint its nominee to the Arbitral Tribunal in view of its failure to comply with the demand of the petitioner to appoint the arbitrator within 30 days from the date of receipt of notice dated 30.8.2005. It is apparent that the respondent did not appoint an Arbitrator as it was under a bona fide impression that there cannot be an arbitration. Further without prejudice to its contentions, it has nominated its Arbitrator.

13. For the aforesaid reasons, this petition is allowed and the following Arbitral Tribunal is constituted to adjudicate upon the claim made by the petitioner against the Respondent and to settle the disputes between the parties :

nominee of petitioner.

14. Registry is directed to communicate the constitution of the Arbitral Tribunal to the three Arbitrators to enable them to enter upon the reference and decide the matter expeditiously.
Arvinder Singh Bains vs State Of Punjab & Ors

Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 - Khushi Ram and Gurpal Singh Bhatti are impleaded as parties in I.A.No. 3 as per order dated 18.05.2006.

(c) the persons appointed as a result of earlier selection from a Register shall be senior to those appointed as a result of subsequent selection from the same Register."

The State Government and respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed written statement to the above statement.

i) that the State Government had itself done interjection in the matter of assignment of seniority. The stand of the State Government itself was that interjection had been done as a via- media. The State Government had not assigned seniority purely on the basis of the date of appointment. Thus, the stand of the State Government was conflicting at various places.

The above Rule clearly contemplates simultaneous appointment of PCS Officers from various Registers. Moreover, the reference point is the direct recruitment from Register-B. Others appointed from other Registers are given year of allotment as Officers appointed in service from Register-B against their corresponding vacancy. Mr. Rao submitted that the above Rule also demonstrates linkage between year of allotment and the vacancies. K) That the Government at times may not make selection from a particular source on account of unexplained reasons. For such inaction of the Government in making selection from a particular source, appellant from Register-B could not be made to suffer loss of seniority vis-`-vis other sources from which recruitment had been made.

47. To sum up, we hold that:

It is submitted in this appeal that the ambit of Rule 20 is completely different and is in no way rendered redundant. This interpretation has not been contested or denied by the Government in the written statement.

We shall now scan the three judgments cited by Mr. Ashok Panda.

We, therefore, issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to prepare the seniority list of the appellants who belong to the PCS (EB) in accordance with Rule 18 and read with Rule 21 of the 1976-Rules by fixing seniority according to the roaster prescribed under Rule 18 of the 1976-Rules. Fresh seniority list should be drawn within three months. We further direct the respondents to grant all the consequential benefits in the nature of scale of pay, promotion etc. to the IAS, arrears of salary etc. which they remained deprived due to negligence of the respondent State. In the result, the Civil Appeal No. 6373 of 2001 is allowed. However, we order no costs.