L-NLProc/TathyaNyaya-and-FactLegalLlama-NyayaScrape-Datasets huggingface dataset:
State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr. Principal ... vs Mahendra Gupta

2. The parties shall be described as referred to in the writ Digitally signed by ASHWANI KUMAR Date: 2018.02.08 petition. The facts giving rise to this appeal are: 17:34:25 IST Reason:

3. The State of Madhya Pradesh filed writ appeal challenging the judgment of the learned Singe Judge. The State contended before the Division Bench of the High Court that there was no illegality   in   the   order   issued   by   the   Chairperson   and   one member,   although,   it   was   heard   by   three   members   when   the meeting   took   place   on   16.10.2014.   The   Division   Bench dismissed the appeal upholding the view of the learned Single Judge.

25. Although,   in   above   two   cases,   there   was   concurrence   of all the members of Court/Tribunal but all had not signed the order.     The   present   is   a   case   where   Chairperson   and   two members heard the application in meeting dated 16.10.2014 but order was subsequently pronounced on 15.12.2014 and signed by only Chairperson and one member.  The third member having been transferred in the meanwhile.   As noticed above, there is no pleading in the writ petition as to whether the third member, who was transferred had agreed with the proposed order or did not agree with the decision, which was to be delivered by the State   Transport   Authority.     Had   third   member   agreed,   there cannot be any debate in this matter, the issues being covered 20 by   judgment   of   this   Court   in  Ramaswamy   Nadar(supra)  and judgment   of   the   Privy   Council   in  Gokal   Chand   ­Jagan   Nath (supra). But there being neither any pleading nor any material to   come   to   the   conclusion   that   the   third   member   has   agreed with   the   opinion,   we   have   proceeded   to   examine   the   present case  as  if,    the  third  member  did  not  agree  with  the   order proposed.   We have already noticed the reason for coming to the  conclusion   that  the  order   issued   by  the  State   Transport Authority, signed by the Chairperson and one member is a valid order having been issued with the majority opinion of two out of three, who heard the application on 16.10.2014.   Thus, in any view of the matter, no illegality can be attached with the order   dated   15.12.2014,   which   was   signed   by   the   Chairperson and one member.

27. In the result, the appeal is allowed and judgments of the High Court are set aside.
Mahanth Satyanand @ Ramjee Singh vs Shyam Lal Chauhan And Ors.

2. The genesis of the case is traceable to a Suit filed by the respondents herein against one Swami Sheo Dharmanand and two others seeking the relief of declaration that they are trespassers and for consequential relief of grant of permanent injunction. Consequent to its dismissal, plaintiffs—respondents filed First Appeal before the Sub-Judge, Bhabhua which was allowed. The aggrieved defendants preferred Second Appeal before the High Court. During the pendency of Second Appeal before the High Court, one of the original defendants i.e. Swami Sheo Dharmanand (Appellant No. 1 before the High Court) died. Afterwards, the appellants herein, filed their separate I.As. in the Second Appeal seeking to implead themselves as actual chela and successor of the deceased. The High Court, by its order dated 2.7.2008 remanded the matter to the trial Court to submit a report under Order 22 Rule 5of the Code of Civil procedure, 1908 [hereinafter referred as ‘CPC’ for brevity]. The relevant portion of the order dated 2.7.2008 passed 3 by the High Court reads:

13. In view of the foregoing reasons, we set aside the order of the High Court and remit the matter back to the High Court for determining the issue as per the provisions of Order 22 Rule 5. The High Court shall decide the question on merits as to who is the legal representative of the deceased Swami Sheo Dharmanand on the basis of the reports submitted by the trial Court and also taking into account any objections or material which the parties rely upon. Only thereafter, the High Court shall proceed with the hearing of second appeal. We request the High Court to take up the matter as early as possible and dispose of the same expeditiously in 11 accordance with law.

15. The appeals are allowed in the above terms.

Consequently, all the pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of. No costs.
Sube Singh vs Shyam Singh (Dead)

2. Briefly   stated,   in   a   motor   accident   which   occurred   on 22.09.2009, Ajit Singh, who was at the relevant time 23 years of age died. His parents, who were in the age group of 40 to 45 1  2015 (2) SCC 180 2 years,   filed   a   petition   claiming   compensation.   The   Motor Accident Claims Tribunal held that the established income of the   deceased   was   around   Rs.4,200/­   per   month   and   after deduction of 50% as the deceased was unmarried, calculated the   same   as   Rs.2,100/­   per   month.     Thereafter,   it   applied multiplier 15, taking the age of the “parents of the deceased” into consideration. This was challenged by the appellants by way of an appeal before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, being FAO No.330 of 2012 (O&M) which was partly allowed in relation to other heads of compensation. As regards multiplier applied for determination of loss of future income,   the   High   Court   held   that   multiplier   14   will   be applicable. For that, the High Court relied on the decision of this   Court  of  (Two   Judge Bench)  in  Ashvinbhai   Jayantilal Modi  (supra).   Resultantly,   the   appellants   have   filed   the present appeal, questioning the correctness of the conclusion so reached by the High Court.

3. According to the appellants, the correct multiplier to be applied in the facts of the present case is 18, as the deceased 3 was only 23 years of age on the date of accident. To buttress this submission, reliance is placed on the decision in  Sarla Verma (Smt.) and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation And Anr.2. Reliance is also placed on the recent judgment of this   Court   (Three   Judge   Bench)   in   the   case   of  Munna   Lal Jain and Anr. Vs. Vipin Kumar Sharma and Ors. 3,  which has restated the legal position that multiplier should depend on   the   age   of   the   deceased   and   not   on   the   age   of   the dependents.

To   arrive   at   the   loss   of   dependency,   the 5 Tribunal   must   consider   (i) additions/deductions to be made for arriving at the income; (ii) the deductions to be made towards   the  personal  living   expenses  of   the deceased; and (iii) the multiplier to be applied with reference to the age of the deceased. We do not think it is necessary for us to revisit the   law   on   the   point   as   we   are   in   full agreement with the view in Sarla Verma.”

6.     Accordingly,   the   appeal   is   allowed   in   the   aforementioned terms with no order as to costs.

.………………………….CJI.

February 09, 2018.
Archit Saini vs Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.

3. In   the   petition   for   compensation   filed   before   the   Motor Accident   Claims   Tribunal   (for   short,   “the   Tribunal”),   it   was alleged   that   the   accident   was   caused   due   to   parking   of   the offending Gas Tanker in the middle of the road without any indicator   or   parking   lights.   The   claimant   examined   the   eye­ witness   Sohan   Lal   (PW­7)   who,   in   his   affidavit,   gave   an account of the cause of accident in the following words:

12. The   appeals   are   allowed   in   the   aforementioned   terms with no order as to costs.

.………………………….CJI.

February 09, 2018.
Steel Authority Of India Ltd. vs Choudhary Tilotama Das .

2. In the year 1999, to be precise on 12 th February, 1999, the Rourkela Steel Plant (hereinafter referred to as “RSP”) introduced a Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 1999 covering employees who had served for 2 a minimum of 15 years or who are above 40 years of age. Thereafter by Circular dated 9th August, 1999 the RSP floated another scheme called “Scheme for Allotment of Quarters to Ex-employees Separating under the SAIL VRS Scheme, 1999”. Under the said Scheme of 1999, employees of the RSP who were allotted official quarters were allowed to occupy such quarters on licence basis for a period of 22 (twenty two) months following their leaving the RSP/Company on the basis of voluntary retirement.

14. In a situation where no legal right can be understood to have been vested in the respondents – writ petitioners under the Scheme of 2002 and operation of the said Scheme of 2002 today is not considered feasible or necessary by the appellant on account of the reasons stated in the additional affidavit dated 22nd January, 2018, as noticed herein above, we do not see how the appellant can be compelled to grant any long-term lease of the official quarters in the RSP to the respondents – writ petitioners who are its 13 ex-employees. Such subsequent facts and developments that have taken place during the interregnum would certainly be material in moulding the relief(s) and answering the issues arising before this Court.

15. Consequently and in the light of the above we are of the view that no relief can be afforded to the respondents–writ petitioners, at this point of time. Consequently, we allow this appeal; set aside the order of the High Court but at the same time we direct that the respondents–writ petitioners (53 in number) or their legal heirs, as may be, be allowed to remain in occupation of the quarters for a period of 33 (thirty three) months with effect from today, on the expiry of which they will handover vacant and peaceful possession of the said accommodation/quarter to the competent authority of the RSP.

16. The appeal, consequently, is disposed of in the above terms.

S.L.P.(C) NO.2564 OF 2010

17. Leave granted.

18. The appeal is disposed of in terms of the judgment/order passed in Civil appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.34336 of 2009.

(R. BANUMATHI) NEW DELHI FEBRUARY 12, 2018
Swaraj Abhiyan vs Union Of India

2. The plea set out in the petition is that the State of Chhattisgarh entered into an agreement dated 26th October, 2017 with Sharp Ocean Investments Limited and acquired a helicopter without following the due process and caused loss to the government. It is also alleged that an account was opened by the son of the Chief Minister 6 months after the bulk payment was made by the Government for the said purchase. The database compiled by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) shows Abhishak Singh as the shareholder of Quest Heights Limited (incorporated in British Virgin Islands on 3.7.2008) and Sharecorp Limited. The CAG report stated that loss 2 of Rs.65 lakhs was caused to the exchequer in the procurement of the helicopter.

10. Accordingly, a delegation of the State went to Hong Kong and negotiated with M/s. Sharp Ocean Investments Limited, Hong Kong and gave its report on 15th February, 2007 to the effect that the helicopter could be supplied on negotiated terms for US $ 6 6 million in six months. Thereafter, a note was put up on 4 th April, 2007 by the Director of Aviation that efforts should be first made to acquire the helicopter at 2005 price (about Rs.24 crores). Since this proposal could not materialize as vide letter dated 5.4.2007, the OSS Air Management Pvt. Ltd. that price of US $ 6 million + services was final price, global tender was published. Three proposals were received and the High Level Committee after evaluation on 7th July, 2007, recommended acceptance of tender submitted by M/s. Sharp Ocean Investments Limited, subject to delivery being made by December, 2007. Accordingly a decision was taken and purchase order was placed and thereafter delivery was effected. Payments were made as follows:

Final payment of 70% will be at the time of “acceptance” of helicopter at Milan.

16. There is no material to prima facie hold that beneficiary of transaction was Abhishak Singh. We do not consider it necessary to go into the allegation of mere procedural irregularities. We broadly find that no case is made out for interference by this Court for issuing a direction as sought in absence of allegation of extraneous consideration being substantiated.

FEBRUARY 13, 2017.
Kurukshetra University vs Prithvi Singh

2. The controversy involved in the case is short as it would be clear from the narration of the relevant facts infra.

3. The appellant is the Kurukshetra University (hereinafter referred to as “the University”). The respondent was working as Security Guard in the University as daily rated employee.

4. On 18.08.1999, the respondent while on duty alleged to have misbehaved with one lady Research Scholar, who was working in the University. The appellant took note of the incident and held departmental enquiry by appointing Enquiry Officer to probe into the incident.

5. The Enquiry Officer, in his report dated 20.09.1999, found the respondent guilty for committing the misconduct. The appellant accordingly decided to discontinue the services of the respondent and treating him to be the daily rated worker dispensed with his services with effect from 30.03.2000.

27. We notice that the Labour Court held on facts that the respondent had worked for 240 days in one calendar year. We do not consider it proper to set aside this factual finding. Indeed, it is due to this finding, the respondent is held entitled to claim protection of Labour Laws.

28. The High Court while deciding the appellant's writ petition did not take note of any legal issues mentioned above and cursorily dismissed the writ petition.

29. In the light of the foregoing discussion, we cannot countenance the approach and the manner in which the Labour Court and the High Court dealt with the issues arising in the case. The award of the Labour Court and judgment of the High Court are, therefore, held per se without jurisdiction and legally unsustainable.

30. In view of the foregoing discussion, we allow the appeal, set aside the award of the Labour Court to the extent indicated above and the judgment of the High Court and remand the case to the Labour Court.

32. The appellant shall appear before the Labour Court on 05.03.2018 and will file the copy of this judgment. Since the respondent has not appeared in this Court despite service on him, the Labour Court will issue fresh notice to the respondent for his appearance before the Labour Court and then decide the case as directed above within three months from the date of service of notice to the respondent.

February 15, 2018 15
G. Saraswathi vs Rathinammal .

3. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass and it would be clear from the facts stated hereinbelow.

7. The appellant felt aggrieved and filed Letters Patent Appeal before the Division Bench. By impugned order, the Division Bench dismissed the appeal giving rise to filing of this appeal before this Court by way of special leave.

13. Indeed, in the absence of any application of judicial mind to the factual and legal controversy involved in the appeal and further without even mentioning the factual narration of the case set up by the parties, the findings of the two Courts as to how they dealt with the issues arising in the case in their respective jurisdiction and without there being any 5 discussion, appreciation, reasoning and categorical findings on the issues and why the findings of two Courts below deserve to be upheld or reversed, while dealing with the arguments of the parties in the light of legal principles applicable to the case, it is difficult for this Court to sustain such order of the Division Bench. In our opinion, the disposal of the LPA by the Division Bench of the High Court cannot be said to be in conformity with the requirements of Order 41 Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908(hereinafter referred to as “the Code”).

15. In the light of the foregoing discussion, we allow the appeal, set aside the impugned order and remand the case to the Division Bench of the High Court for deciding the appeal afresh on merits in accordance with law keeping in view our observations made supra. 7

16. We, however, make it clear that we have refrained from making any observation on merits of the controversy having formed an opinion to remand the case to the High Court for the reasons mentioned above. The High Court would, therefore, decide the appeal, uninfluenced by any of our observations, strictly in accordance with law. Since the appeal is quite old, we request the High Court to ensure expeditious disposal of the appeal.

17. The appeal is accordingly allowed. Impugned order is set aside with the aforesaid directions.

….………………………………..J (R.K. AGRAWAL) ………..………………………………J. (ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE) New Delhi, February 15, 2018 8
Industrial Infrastructure ... vs Commissioner Of Income Tax Gwalior M.P.

3. The appellant is a limited company registered under the Companies Act. It is a State Government Undertaking which is established with a view to develop and assist the State in the development of industrial growth centers/areas, to promote, encourage and assist the establishment growth and development of industries in the State of M.P. The appellant is an "assesse" under the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).

6. On 27.11.2000, the CIT issued a show cause notice to the appellant stating therein as to why the registration certificate granted to the appellant by order dated 10.02.1999 under Section 12A of the 3 Act be not cancelled/withdrawn. The show cause notice also set out the factual grounds for the withdrawal of the registration certificate. The appellant was asked to reply the show cause notice. The appellant accordingly filed their reply and opposed the grounds on which the withdrawal/cancellation of the certificate was proposed.

9. On 20.12.2002, the CIT rejected the application filed by the appellant for rectification holding that there was no error in his order cancelling the registration certificate granted to the appellant. In other words, the CIT held that he had the power to cancel the certificate once granted by him and, therefore, the order for cancelling the registration certificate is legal and proper.

30. We are of the considered view that the view taken by the abovementioned three High Courts in the respective cases is in conformity with law and we accordingly approve the said view taken by these High Courts in three aforementioned decisions.

31. In the light of the foregoing discussion, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. Impugned order is set aside and the order of ITAT is restored.

February 16, 2018 15
D. Srinivas vs Sbi Life Insurance Co. Ltd

3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are that the appellant along with his wife, Smt. D. Suguna and son Mr. D. Venugopal obtained housing loan of Rs.30,00,000/- (Rupees thirty lacs) in the month of September, 2008 from the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 for construction of a house in Hyderabad. On 29.09.2008, a sum of Rs.78,150/- (Rupees seventy eight thousand one hundred fifty) was debited from their loan account towards SBI Life Insurance Cover under Group Insurance Scheme for home loan borrowers, through master policy holder i.e. State Bank of Hyderabad, covering the Life of Mr. D. Venugopal, who was one of the joint loanees. The proposal form dated 29.09.2008 was accompanied by good health declaration by the insured. D. Venugopal expired on 17.12.2009 due to a massive heart attack. Consequently, the said life insurance obtained in his name came into force, obligating the insurer, the first respondent herein, to pay the outstanding amount in their loan account. The appellant approached the insurer and the bank informing them about the demise of D. Venugopal and requested them to settle the insurance claim and to discharge the outstanding loan amount in their house loan account. Since the insurer did not accede to his request, he filed a consumer complaint before the State Commission.

5. The State Commission allowed the complaint by its order dated 16.07.2012. However, the National Commission, by majority, allowed the appeal and dismissed the complaint filed by the appellant.

16. In the circumstances, there is no reason to believe that there was no complete contract. There is clear presumption of the acceptance of the proposal in favour of the proposer. Therefore, the majority view of the Commission would not sustain.

17. In the result, the appeal succeeds and is accordingly allowed. The order of the National Commission dated 22.11.2016 is hereby set aside and the order of the State Commission dated 16.7.2012 is restored.

18. There shall be no orders as to costs.

February 16, 2018.
Odisha Indusl.Infras.Devt.Corp. Ltd. vs Pitabasa Mishra

Leave granted in both the Special Leave Petitions.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred to as arrayed in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.8427 of 2011 filed by Odisha Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited (for short “the Corporation”/“Appellant- Corporation”).

3. M/s. Sai Sankar Associates (Respondent No.7) was an unauthorized occupant of an extent of 14 decimals of land which is equivalent to 6300 sq.ft. in the Commercial Estate at Rourkela and was carrying on a small scale industry since 1996. The Respondent No.7 made representations dated 28th September, 1996, 27th January, 1999 and 25th July, 2002 seeking regularization of the industrial plot which was in their unauthorized occupation. Due to the failure of the Appellant-Corporation in considering the said representations, Respondent No.7 filed Writ Petition No. 6969 of 2008 in the High Court of Orissa seeking a direction to regularize the land which was in its occupation. The High Court by a judgment dated 13th May, 2008 directed the Appellant to consider and dispose of the representation expeditiously, 2 preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of the certified copy of the order.

IV- Consideration for the land not commensurate:

26. For the aforementioned reasons, the judgment of the High Court is set aside and the Appeals are allowed accordingly.