L-NLProc/TathyaNyaya-and-FactLegalLlama-NyayaScrape-Datasets huggingface dataset:
M/S.Sigma Diagnostics Ltd vs United India Insurance Co.Ltd. & Anr

The Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission [for short, "the State Commission"] partly allowed the complaint of the appellant and directed the respondents to pay compensation to the extent of 50% of the price of the equipment, namely, Megalix Cat X-ray Tube along with customs duty of the newly purchased equipment plus other amounts admissible under the policy, if any. The State Commission also awarded 9% interest on the amount of compensation for the period commencing 16.8.2005 till the date of payment and costs of Rs.5,000/-. Against the order of the State Commission, both the parties preferred appeals. By the impugned order, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission [for short "the National Commission"] dismissed the appeals by observing that it should not entertain the first appeals relating to quantum ...2/-

In our opinion, the view taken by the National Commission on the maintainability of the appeals preferred by the parties against the order of the State Commission is clearly erroneous. When the complaint was disposed of on merits, the National Commission was duty bound to decide the appeals on merits. Its failure to do so has resulted in manifest injustice.

Accordingly, the appeals are allowed, impugned order passed by the National commission is set aside and the matter is remanded to it to decide the appeals on merits in accordance with law.
Devi Prasad & Ors vs Vishwa Nath Prasad & Ors

The parties hereto had filed a deed of settlement before the Court of First Subordinate Judge, Bhojpur, Ara, in Title Suit No. 420/2005. Respondent No.1 was shown to be a party to the said compromise deed. He, however, filed an application on or about 25.8.2006 alleging that his signature was forged on the compromise deed and only on that basis, by an order dated 24.7.2009 the learned Subordinate Judge directed as under:

For the reasons aforementioned, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained which is set aside accordingly and the appeal is allowed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

The Trial Court shall enquire into the application filed by the first respondent.

........................J (S.B. SINHA) ........................J (DEEPAK VERMA) NEW DELHI, JULY 20, 2009.
P.A.Jayalakshmi vs H.Saradha & Ors

4. Appellant filed her written statement on 7.4.2006, inter alia, contending that after the death of Anantha Subramania Iyer, the properties in suit devolved upon each of his children equally as a result whereof she inherited 1/7th share therein. Allegedly, she discovered on or about 5.2.2007 that Anantha Subramania Iyer had executed a Will in favour of his wife. On or about 1.3.2007, she filed an application for leave to file additional written statement. By an order dated 27.3.2007, the learned Trial Judge dismissed the said application, opining :

5. Aggrieved thereby and dissatisfied therewith, the appellant filed a Civil Revision Petition which by reason of the impugned judgment has been dismissed by the High Court, stating :

It is couched in a mandatory form. The court's jurisdiction to allow such an application is taken away unless the conditions precedent therefor are satisfied viz. it must come to a conclusion that in spite of due diligence the parties could not have raised the matter before the commencement of the trial.

XXX XXX XXX

11. We, therefore, do not find any legal infirmity in the orders passed by the High Court. This appeal is, therefore, dismissed with costs. Counsel's fee assessed at Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only).

July 21, 2009
Ramesh Dutt & Ors vs State Of Punjab & Ors

4. Allegedly, the land in question was said to have been transferred to one Kahla Singh by the Tehsildar in the year 1977-78. He filed a suit being Civil suit No.309 against his daughter-in-law wherein a decree acknowledging a transfer in favour of the latter was passed. The appellants are said to have made a representation before the concerned authority in relation to the functioning of the school after passing of the aforementioned decree came to their knowledge. It is stated that a report dated 14.1.1983 was submitted by the then Tehsildar (Sales), Ludhiana showing the school to be an existing one whereafter the name of the appellants had been recorded in the record of rights.

6. Appellants sold a part of the land to M/s Everest Girls School. Allegedly sale proceeds therefrom had been spent on construction of sixteen rooms in the existing school. The vendees of the said premises, i.e., the M/s. Everest School were threatened with dispossession by the supporters of respondent Nos.3 and 5. A newspaper report to that effect also appeared in `Punjab Kesri'. They filed a civil suit in the court of Civil Judge, Ludhiana wherein an order of status-quo was passed in the following terms :

7. It appears that in a meeting held on 24.6.1999, the third respondent raised a question with regard to the purported illegal transfer by the 4 appellants before the District Grievance Committee. However, it was stated that he had obtained the legal opinion that no offence is made out. The resolution adopted in the said meeting dated 24.6.1999 reads as under:

8. The appellants also filed an application before the respondent No.4 on 18.9.2000 stating their bona fide in the matter besides pointing out the interest of the students of the school. The Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana issued notice to the school assessing the house tax. House Tax is being paid by the appellants.

9. In the suit filed by the Everest School, applications were filed by the supporters of respondent Nos.3 and 5 for their impleadment which were dismissed.

11.9.2000 all the above said accused are liable for cheating including the members of the above Society and along with predecessor. A case under above said sections be registered and legal action be taken. In this connection opinion of the District 7 Attorney, Ludhiana has been obtained and he has opined that case under Sections 420/465/467/468/471 read with Section 120-B IPC can be registered. You are hereby informed that keeping in view order of District Grievance Committee meeting held on 11.9.2000, necessary case be registered against above said accused persons and this office may be informed about the action taken therein."

19. For the reasons aforementioned, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained. It is set aside accordingly. Appeal is allowed. This Order, 13 however, may not be construed to be a judgment in respect of the right, title and interest over the property in question.

July 21, 2009
Nand Kishore vs Yashpal Singh

3. The appellant, who had purchased the House No. 189, Sector 11-A, Chandigarh (which is in a residential area) in an auction in 1990, raised a construction on that plot which is 500 Sq. Yds. (hereinafter referred to as "the demised premises"). As the appellant has settled in U.K., his father Shri Mange Ram, who is a permanent resident of India, had inducted the respondent as a tenant in a part of the residential premises for residential use in the month of April, 1994. The tenant/respondent (hereinafter referred to as the `respondent'), according to the appellant, without the consent and permission of the appellant, started commercial activities in the demised premises from December 1994. The appellant filed an application under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), for eviction of the respondent from the demised premises on the ground that although the demised premises was let out for residential purposes, the respondent had, without the consent and permission of the appellant, started using it for commercial use. The eviction application was 2 dismissed by the Rent Controller, Chandigarh, against which an appeal was taken before the Appellate Authority, Chandigarh, which was allowed by its order dated 14th of August, 2001. Against this order of the Appellate Authority, the respondent filed a revision petition before the High Court and by the impugned Judgment of the High Court, the eviction petition of the appellant was dismissed and the order of the Rent Controller, Chandigarh was restored.

31. For the reasons aforesaid, the impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside and that of the Appellate Authority is restored and the application for eviction filed by the appellant is thus allowed.

32. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, we grant six months time to the respondent to vacate the premises subject to filing of a usual undertaking in this Court within a month from this date.

33. The appeal is thus allowed. There will be no order as to costs.
Amrit Lal & Ors vs Maharani & Ors

4. An objection was filed by Sukhraja under Section 9(A)(2) of the Consolidation of Holding Act before the Consolidation Officer, which was allowed by reason of order dated 22nd January, 1971, holding:

8. The High Court by its order dated 10th July 1979 remanded the matter to the Deputy Director of Consolidation for further evidences. The Deputy Director of Consolidation after taking further evidence again dismissed the Revision Application by an order dated 19th May, 1987. 5

6. Revision filed thereagainst by Sukhraja was dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Rae Bareli by an order dated 25th September 1972.

9. Aggrieved by and dissatisfied therewith, Sukhraja filed a Writ Petition marked as Writ Petition No. 8555 of 1987 before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad at Lucknow Bench, which has been allowed by reason of the impugned judgment.

17. For the reasons aforementioned, there is no merit in this appeal. It is dismissed accordingly with costs. Counsel's fee assessed at Rs.10,000/-.

July 21, 2009
Haryana State Coop Supply Mkt Fed.Ltd vs Sanjay

3. Sanjay, respondent, was engaged as Chowkidar on causal basis by the District Manager, HAFED, Jind on August, 1998 for 29 days. On expiry of the said contract, fresh contracts were executed from time to time and he rendered service there until December 31, 1998. He was engaged afresh by the District Manager, HAFED, Hissar on January 15, 1999 where he worked upto May 31, 1999. As the service of the respondent was not renewed after May 31, 1999, he issued demand notice under Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short "ID Act") raising dispute to the effect that his services were illegally terminated. Conciliation efforts having failed, upon receipt of the failure report, the appropriate Government referred the dispute for adjudication to the concerned Labour Court.

4. The respondent in his statement of claim before the Labour Court set up the case that he had completed more than 240 days of continuous service in the year preceding the date of termination with the HAFED. He raised the grievance that without following the mandatory procedure provided in Section 2 25-F of the ID Act, his services were terminated which amounted to illegal retrenchment. It is pertinent to notice here that the respondent clubbed the period of his engagement with District Manager, HAFED, Jind and District Manager, HAFED, Hissar while computing 240 days of continuous service.

14. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed. The Judgment dated May 7, 2007 passed by the High Court and the Award dated February 8, 2006 passed by the Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, Hissar are quashed and set aside. The parties will bear their own costs.

........................J 10 (Tarun Chatterjee) ........................J (R. M. Lodha) New Delhi July 22, 2009.
Government Of Goa & Anr vs J.M.R.Noronha

(b) that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to grant an appropriate Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, ordering and directing the Respondents herein to forthwith grant to the petitioner, the benefit of revised A.I.C.T.E. pay scale of Rs. 3700-5700, instead of and in place of Rs. 2200-4000, with effect from the date, as granted to other similarly situated persons vide Order dated 7.5.1994."

8. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed and the judgment dated January 12, 2004 is set aside. Writ petition is restored to the file of the High Court for fresh consideration and disposal in accordance with law. As the matter is quite old, we request the High Court to expedite its hearing.

........................J (Tarun Chatterjee) ........................J (R. M. Lodha) New Delhi July 22, 2009.
P.K.Palanisamy vs N.Arumugham & Anr

(iv) The trial court had the jurisdiction to entertain the said application at any stage of the suit 9

Mr. Venugopal would urge that the said observations were made keeping in view the fact that the contention in that behalf had been raised at the appellate stage. It may be so, but it is well known that the appeal is continuation of the suit.

17. For the reasons aforementioned, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained. It is set aside accordingly. The appeal is allowed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

July 23, 2009
National Insurance Co.Ltd vs Gurumallamma & Anr

3. Indisputably, one Nagraj, predecessor-in-interest of the respondent, died in an accident which took place on 14.12.2005. The deceased was travelling in an auto rickshaw bearing registration No.KA-05-A/4240. It collided with a car bearing Registration No.KA-02-N/4605.

4. An application under Section 163A of the Act was filed. The deceased, at the time of accident, was aged about 22 years; whereas the age of the claimant was 50 years. The learned Tribunal as also the High Court, in determining the amount of compensation, applied the multiplier of 17.

12. In view of the aforementioned finding, we are of the opinion that it is not necessary for us to take into consideration, the decisions cited at the bar suggesting that in a case of death of an unmarried person and wherein the claimants are the parents of the deceased, the age of the deceased shall be irrelevant factor for applying the multiplier specified in the Second Schedule.

13. To the aforementioned extent, this appeal is allowed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, however, there shall be no order as to costs.

July 23, 2009
Girijan Co.Op Corpn Ltd., A.P vs K. Satyanarayana Rao

Respondents herein were employees of the appellant-Corporation. They reached the age of superannuation some time in 2000. A departmental proceeding was initiated against the respondents in the year 1999 alleging some financial irregularities on their part committed in the year 1992-93. Certain amount was sought to be recovered from them which the appellant allegedly suffered by reason of the misconduct committed by them shortly before their superannuation.

We, therefore, are of the opinion that it is not a fit case where this Court should exercise its jurisdiction under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC or the provisions akin thereto, keeping in view the fact that the parameters laid down therein are not satisfied.

In absence of any rules, therefore, a disciplinary proceeding against a retired employee should not have been continued. The judgment of the High Court, in our opinion, cannot be said to be faulty. We, however, keeping in view the subsequent documents brought before us by the appellant, would observe that, in future, in any other case or before any other authority, the Corporation would be at liberty to place all the relevant documents and to that effect the question of law raised by the appellant herein shall remain open.

The appeals are dismissed with the aforementioned observations and direction. However, in the facts and circumstances of this case, there shall be no order as to costs.

........................J (S.B. SINHA) ........................J (DEEPAK VERMA) NEW DELHI, JULY 24, 2009.
State Of Maharashtra & Ors vs Swanstone Multiplex Cinema(P) Ltd

Background facts:

1,16,95,846/-. On or about 30.12.2005, the appellant issued another notice demanding Rs. 1,16,95,846/- within 48 hours. Further on 21.01.2006 issued a further demand notice to the respondent for a sum of Rs. 70,39,529/- for the period between 23.09.2005 and 5.01.2006.

26. We think that it would be better course, as strict sensu, Article 296 of the Constitution is not applicable.

29. We, therefore, direct that the State shall realize the amount to the extent the respondent had unjustly enriched itself and pay the same to a voluntary or a charitable organization, which according to it is a reputed civil society organization and had been rendering good services to any section of the disadvantaged people and in particular women and children.

We would request Hon'ble the Chief Minister of the State to take up the responsibility in this behalf so that full, proper and effective utilization of the amount in question is ensured.

30. For the reasons aforementioned, the appeal is allowed with the aforementioned directions with costs. Counsel's fee assessed at Rs. 50,000/.

July 27, 2009
Kerala State Cashew Dev.Corp.Ltd.& Anr vs N.Asokan

2. We are not inclined to interfere with the order impugned in this appeal, by which the High Court has affirmed an order of a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam, directing the Kerala State Cashew Development Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "the Corporation"), the appellant herein, to pay gratuity with interest to the respondent.

9. For the reasons aforesaid, the appeal is dismissed. We, however, grant six weeks' time to the appellant-Corporation to pay interest on the delayed payment of gratuity in compliance with Section 7(3A) of the Act. There will be no order as to costs.

10. We further make it clear that this order shall not be treated as precedent in other similar cases.

July 27, 2009
Assistant Commr.(Ct) Ltu And Anr vs Amara Raja Batteries Ltd

7. The Government of Andhra Pradesh came up with a new industrial policy called `Target 2000' by way of GOMs No. 108 dated 20.05.1996. In this GOMs issued for enforcing the said policy, all other GOMs were mentioned except GOMs No. 75 dated 14.03.1996. Apart from the grant of subsidy upto 20% of the fixed capital not exceeding Rs. 20,00,000/-, tax holiday was declared for a period of seven years and deferment of tax for a period of fourteen years, apart from other benefits specified therein. 4

Intention of the legislature is clear and unambiguous. Exemption is to be given on the turnover of sale of goods in an assessment year in excess of the base production. We do not find any substance in the submission advanced on behalf of the appellants."

32. Civil Appeals arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 18795, 19104, 21482 of 2006, 489, 12440 and 12151 of 2007 are dismissed and other appeals being Civil Appeals arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 14640 and 17903 of 2007 filed by 20 Suryachandra Paper Mills Limited are allowed with costs. Counsel's fee assessed at Rs.50,000/- in each case.

July 27, 2009
V. Padmanabham vs Govt. Of A.P. & Ors

4. The State filed a writ petition thereagainst before the High Court. By reason of the impugned judgment, the said judgment and order of the Tribunal was set aside, directing :

10. Indisputably, therefore, the departmental proceedings which have been pending against the appellant do not suffer from any legal infirmity and in law would be deemed to have been continuing.

12. We have noticed heretobefore that continuation of the departmental proceedings is not illegal. The Pension Code raises a legal fiction in terms whereof the departmental proceedings would be deemed to have continued. The Tribunal has passed an order in favour of the appellant on technical grounds. The High Court, therefore, in our opinion, cannot be said to have committed any illegality in passing the impugned judgment.

14. We respectfully agree with the aforementioned dicta having regard to the fact situation obtaining in the instant case.

15. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

July 27, 2009.
Registered Partnership Firm vs Vali Mohammad

The appellant herein filed the aforementioned suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 24,630/-. Indisputably, the suit amount was calculated on the basis of the interest charged from the defendant - respondent at the rate of 2% per month i.e. 24 per cent per annum.

In view of the materials brought on record and having regard to the fact that the High Court has arrived at a finding of fact in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, we find no reason to differ therewith. Consequently, this appeal is dismissed with costs. Counsel's fee is assessed at Rs. 10,000/-.

.......................J (S.B. SINHA) .......................J (DEEPAK VERMA) NEW DELHI, JULY 27, 2009.
State Of M.P.& Ors vs Ramesh Chandra Bajpai

3. The respondent was appointed as Physical Training Instructor in Government Ayurvedic College, Ujjain by an offer of appointment dated 18.1.1973. He filed O.A. No. 907 of 1998 before the Madhya Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Indore Bench (for short, "the Tribunal") with the prayer that the non-applicants in the O.A. (the petitioners herein) be directed to treat him as teacher and fix his pay in the pay scale prescribed for that post along with the benefit of senior scale and also give him the UGC pay scale (Rs.3,700-5,700) w.e.f.1.1.1986.

4. The Tribunal dismissed the application of the respondent observing that the applicant having not been holding the post of Sports Officer and having not been working in the Government College administered by the 3 Department of Higher Education, he was not entitled to any relief. The Tribunal also held that Physical Training Instructors cannot be treated at par with the teachers because the Government has not issued any order equating the said two posts.

The Division Bench dismissed the writ appeal preferred by the petitioners primarily on the ground that a large number of Physical Training Instructors have already been granted U.G.C. scale and an order declining 4 relief to the respondent would result in discrimination. The Division Bench also referred to the judgment in P.S. Ramamohana Rao (supra) and held that the respondent cannot be deprived of the benefit of pay scale which has already been extended to other similarly situated Physical Training Instructors employed in the Ayurvedic Colleges.

20. In view of the aforementioned pronouncements, it must be held that the respondent cannot derive any benefit from the fact that in compliance of the orders passed by the Tribunal and High Court, the State Government extended the benefit of UGC scale of pay to some of the Physical Training Instructors of Ayurvedic and other colleges. We may assume that what the learned counsel has stated with reference to order dated 24.4.2009 is correct, but as noticed hereinabove the illegality cannot be allowed to be perpetrated by invoking the doctrine of equal pay for equal work.

24. For the aforementioned reasons, the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment is set aside. No costs.

.....................................J [S. B. SINHA] .....................................J [G.S. SINGHVI] .....................................J [DEEPAK VERMA] New Delhi July 28, 2009
M/S Unnao Distilleries & Braviers Ltd vs Commr.Of Income Tax-Ii & Ors

A search was conducted in the premises of M/s. Radico Khaitan Ltd. on 14.2.2006 wherein, inter alia, it was found that some payments had been collected by the U.P. Distilleries Association for payment to public servants. By a notice dated 10.11.2006, the appellant was directed to attend the office of the Commissioner of Income Tax, stating:

In view of the above subsequent events, we are of the opinion that the proceedings for transfer of the file of the appellant from Kanpur to Delhi, for the purpose of centralising the cases for coordinated investigation and meaningful assessment has become infructuous. In this view of the matter, the impugned order cannot be sustained which is set aside accordingly. The appeal is allowed.

JULY 28, 2009.