L-NLProc/TathyaNyaya-and-FactLegalLlama-NyayaScrape-Datasets huggingface dataset:
Sitaram Sao @ Mungeri vs State Of Jharkhand

3. The High Court did not find any substance in the appeals and dismissed the same as noted above.

4. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

In course of investigation, on the basis of confessional statement, a sum of Rs.27,220/- was also recovered from the house of Girja Singh. Later, one of the accused, namely, Lalit Sanga was also arrested, who confessed his guilt before the police and expressed his desire to give statement with regard to the occurrence. His statement was recorded by Chief Judicial Magistrate under Section 306 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'Cr. P.C.') and was granted pardon. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions, which was registered as ST No.319/92 and thereafter the accused persons faced trial in the court of learned VIth Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi and the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner, on consideration of evidence on record, found them guilty; but acquitted two accused persons, namely, Girja Singh and Dinesh Kumar Singh by his judgment dated 1.10.1992. One of the accused, namely, Laxmi Paswan was sentenced to death, while other accused persons were sentenced to undergo RI for life. Thereafter, both the State and the accused persons preferred appeal against the impugned judgment and the High Court, by its judgment dated 28th July, 1993, set aside the judgment of conviction passed by the VIth Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi and the case was remanded to the Court of Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi for fresh commitment proceeding and learned C.J.M. was directed to examine Lalit Sanga, the approver, (PW6), as prosecution witness in accordance with law and procedure. After remand of the case, the learned C.J.M. examined approver Lalit Sanga under Section 306 Cr.P.C. and thereafter committed the case to the Court of Sessions by order dated 19.2.1997 and after remand of the case, the case was registered as Sessions Trial No.156/97. The Learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi transferred the case to another Court for holding the trial of the accused persons. On receipt of the record, charges were framed against the accused persons for offences punishable under Sections 396, 412 and 120 (B) IPC.

5. Trial proceeded and in the course of trial the trial court recorded evidence of twenty-three witnesses, besides documentary evidence and material exhibits and ultimately came to a finding that the appellants are guilty and accordingly convicted them. After recording of the statement, accused Girja Singh fled away and, therefore, his trial was separated from the trial of other accused.

27. All that is required is that there must be some additional evidence rendering it probable that the story of the accomplice (or complainant) is true and that it is reasonably safe to act upon it.

33. We shall now deal with the question relating to the pardon.

35. In view of the factual position and the legal principles set out above the inevitable conclusion is that the appeals are sans merit and deserve to be dismissed which we direct.
The Regional Manager, Apsrtc vs N. Satyanarayana And Ors

3. Factual position is almost undisputed. The respondents were appointed as Conductors w.e.f. 31.10.1996 on daily wages basis. Although the appointments of the respondents were on daily wages basis, their services were to be regularized in a phased manner as and when sanctioned vacancies arose. Since sanctioned vacancies arose and the respondents had completed 240 days of service, in terms of policy decision, their services were regularized w.e.f. 1.8.1987. After passage of more than a decade, respondents filed a writ petition i.e. Writ Petition (C) No.16244 of 1999 seeking regularization of their services from the date of initial appointment with all consequential benefits. By order dated 18.08.2004, learned Single Judge disposed of the Writ Petition along with other cases allowing the writ petitions purportedly following the decision of this Court in Divisional Manager, APSRTC and Ors. v. P. Lakshmoji Rao and Ors. (2004 (2) SCC 433).

11. The learned Single Judge and the Division Bench clearly lost sight of this fact and as rightly contended by learned counsel for the appellant, misread the judgment of this Court to grant relief to the respondents. Orders of both the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court need to be vacated and we direct accordingly.

12. The appeal is allowed but in the circumstances without any order as to costs.
Commnr. Of Central Excise, Allahabad vs M/S Somaiya Organics (India) Ltd

4. Thereafter, by a corrigendum dated 14.1.2000 sale price fixed at Rs.14.25 was corrected as Rs.15/-. On this basis, the differential duty demand, as mentioned, was made. The respondents contended before the adjudicating authority that the entire quantity of SDS manufactured at its distillery is being consumed at Barabanki unit for manufacture of specified articles Molasses which is the major raw material for manufacture of SDS was obtained by the respondents at controlled rate in terms of the provision of U.P. Molasses Control Order, 1964 but other distilleries manufacturing Ethyl Alcohol for non-specified purposes had to purchase molasses at market determined prices. Therefore, there could be no comparison between the cost of production of SDS by the respondents and M/s. Saraiya Distillery, one of the manufacturers whose selling price had been relied upon in the show cause notice. Respondents determined the assessable value of SDS for the purpose of Section 4(1)(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (in short the 'Act') on costing basis as it had no sale of SDS. The cost fixation was undertaken annually on the basis of the previous year's Balance Sheet for determining the value and discharge duty since the Balance Sheets are finalised only in the month of September for the year ending on 31st March. On receipt of the finalised Balance Sheet in September, the value determined on the basis of the earlier Balance Sheet was being revised. If the revision was upward, differential duty was discharged on the increased value. The price declarations filed effective from 1.3.1994 along with the questionnaire was approved by the Central Excise authorities. With effect from 1.4.1994, when Rule 173C of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (in short the 'Rules') was amended the respondents filed the declarations under Rule 173C also.

1994-95 Rs.5.85 per ltr.

1995-96 Rs.5.50 per ltr.

1996-97 Rs.5.50 per ltr.

11. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. There will be no order as to costs.
M/S Jaswant Talkies vs Commercial Taxes Officer, Bhilwara

The inspection was done at 10.00 a.m. when the school children had just entered the hall and, therefore, even before the show started the inspection was done. The order of assessment was challenged before the Commissioner (Appeals). The said authority found that all the tickets were with the Manager of the Cinema, but since each viewer did not possess a ticket there was contravention. Therefore, penalty under Section 10(3)(a) of the Entertainment Act was upheld while setting aside the penalty imposed under Section 10(3)(b)(iii).

The appellant preferred an appeal against the said order before the Rajasthan Taxation Board, Ajmer (in short the 'Taxation Board'). Before the Taxation Board, it was contended that the total cost of the tickets was Rs.3006/- and penalty of Rs.4,39,000/- at the rate of Rs.500/- per viewer was unconscionable. The Taxation Board found that the penalty that was imposed was not imposable at the rate of Rs.500/- per viewer and the maximum penalty imposable was Rs.500/-.

(i) in respect of cases referred to in clause

(ii) in respect of cases referred to in sub- clause (ii) of clause (b) in addition to the amount of tax payable by him a sum not exceeding rupees five hundred or double the amount of tax evaded whichever is higher.

(i) fails to pay the tax due from him under this Act within the prescribed time, or

(i) in respect of cases referred to in clause

(a) and sub-clause (1) of clause (b) regarding entertainment tax, in addition to the amount of tax payable by him, a sum not exceeding Rs.100/- per person;

(ii) in respect of cases referred to in sub- clause (1) of clause (b) regarding advertisement tax and in respect of cases referred to in sub-clause (iii) of clause (b) in addition to the amount of tax payable by him, a sum not exceeding Rs.500; and

(iii)in respect of cases referred to in sub- clause (ii) of clause (b) in addition to the amount of tax payable by him a sum not exceeding Rupees five hundred or double the amount of tax evaded whichever is higher.

clause (i) of clause (b) regarding advertisement tax and in respect of cases referred to in sub-clause (iii) of cause (b), in addition to the amount of tax payable by him, a sum not exceeding Rs.500; and

(iii) in respect of cases referred to in sub clause (ii) of clause (b) in addition to the amount of tax payable by him a sum not exceeding Rupees five hundred or double the amount of tax evaded whichever is higher."

(b) sub-section (5) shall be deleted.

11. The appeal deserves to be allowed which we direct. There shall be no order as to costs.
Pondicherry State Cooperative ... vs Union Territory Of Pondicherry

1. The Judgment of the High Court denying the exemption from payment of Sales Tax is under challenge in this appeal at the instance of the Appellant Pondicherry State Cooperative Consumer Federation Ltd. (for short "the Assessee"). Such exemption was granted by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal at Pondicherry by allowing an appeal filed by the Assessee. Prior to that the Assessee was assessed by the Assessing Authority and on an appeal by the Assessee the taxable liability was brought down to Rs.14,26,729.86 by the Appellate Commissioner. An appeal was, thereafter, filed before the Tribunal which allowed the appeal holding that the Assessee was covered by the G.O.Ms.No.15/74 dated 25.6.1974 and was as such exempted from paying the Sales Tax.

2. The Assessee is a Small Scale Industry certified as such by Director of Industries, Government of Pondicherry by G.O. No.35/IND/88-89/A-5/A- 9 dated 19.5.1989. The said certificate specifically provided that the Unit of the Assessee was exempted from payment of Sales Tax for five years vide G.O.Ms.No.15/74/FIN (CT) dated 25.6.1974. It is obvious that thereafter this tax holiday was extended from time to time. The Assessee is also registered as a Small Industrial Unit and is certified as such by the Director of Industries by his order dated 9.3.1989. The Assessee purchases Palmolive Oil in bulk and packs the oil in small packages for the purpose of selling in retail and this packing of Palmolive Oil is done in the small industrial unit of the Assessee.

8. We respectfully agree with the aforesaid observations and would chose to take the same view by accepting the contention of the appellant that a liberal view of G.O. Ms.No.15/74 dated 25.6.1974 would have to be taken. We accordingly allow the appeal, set aside the order passed by the High Court and restore that of the Tribunal but without any order as to costs.
Radha Pisharassiar Amma vs State Of Kerala

J U D G M E N T CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1542 OF 2007 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 5705 of 2005) WITH Crl. Appeal Nos. 1543, 1544, 1545, 1546 and 1547 of 2007 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) Nos. 5744/2005, 5858/2005, 4683/2006, 4687/2006 and 4684/2006) H.K.SEMA,J.

2. These Appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 10th August, 2005 by the High Court of Kerala in Criminal Appeals. The Appeals arising out of SLP(Crl.) Nos. 5705/2005, 5744/2005 and 5858/2005 are preferred by accused Nos. 4 to 7. The Appeals arising out of SLP(Crl.) Nos. 4683/2006, 4687/2006 and 4684/2006 are preferred by the State.

4. At the relevant time, A-1 was working as Medical Officer at the Primary Health Centre, Chithirapuram. A-2 was Head Clerk. A-3 (deceased) was working as Health Inspector. A-4 and A-5 were working as Sub Treasury Officer, Devikulam. A-6 was working as Junior Superintendent. A-7 was working as Junior Accountant. A-8 was working as L.D. Clerk at the Primary Health Centre, Chithirapuram. A-9 was working as U.D. Clerk in I.P.P., Idukki and A-10 (since deceased) was working as Project Officer, I.P.P., Idukki.

13. To answer this question, it may be necessary to refer to the various documents examined by the Trial Court, High Court and also placed before us. First, we shall deal with the offence of conspiracy. As contended by the State Counsel that the original sanction order at 590 (Exhibit P26a), the expenditure under head `TA' is only Rs.50,000/- for the fiscal year 1990-91. However, the alleged forged allotment order dated 22.8.1990 for the year 1990-91 shown under head `TA' is Rs. 1,70,000/-. It is accordingly urged that the aforesaid sanction allotment letter has been forged by A-4 to A-7 in conspiracy with the other accused and they are liable for punishment under Section 120-B.

18. In the result, Appeals filed by Accused Nos. 4 to 7 are hereby allowed. Conviction recorded and sentence imposed upon A-4 to A-7 by the Trial Court and confirmed by the High Court under Section 13(1)(c) read with Section 13(2) are hereby set aside. The Appellants stand acquitted. They are on bail and their bonds and sureties are discharged.

19. Appeals filed by the State are dismissed. Notice issued by this Court on 28.11.2005 against A-4 to A-7 shall stand discharged.
M/S. Jai Fibres Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ...

6. The cause having been shown, the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise by an order dated 21.10.1997 dropped the proceedings. Revenue being not satisfied therewith preferred an appeal thereagainst before the Commissioner of Central Excise under Section 35E(4) of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944. By a judgment and order dated 30th June, 1999 the said appeal was dismissed. Feeling aggrieved, Revenue preferred an appeal before the Tribunal which, as noticed hereinbefore, has been allowed by reason of the impugned judgment.

15. Having said so, the Board was not unmindful of the consequences which may flow therefrom. It in exercise of its statutory power, therefore, directed its application from a future date.

17. ITW Signode which was rendered in a different fact situation and dod not deal with the proposition of law with which we are concerned herein, in our considered view, could not have been applied by the Tribunal for the purpose of determining the issue in question.

18. For the reasons aforementioned, we are of the opinion that the impugned judgment cannot be sustained which is set aside accordingly. The appeal is allowed. However, in the facts and circumstances of this case, there shall be no order as to costs.
State Of Rajasthan & Ors vs M/S Khandaka Jain Jewellers

3. Brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of this appeal are as under:

4. Aggrieved against this order, an appeal was preferred before the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur Bench and the Division Bench affirmed the order of the learned single Judge. Aggrieved against the order of the Division Bench, the present appeal was preferred by the State of Rajasthan & Ors., appellants herein.

section(1), the Collector shall, after giving the parties a reasonable opportunity of being heard and after holding an enquiry in the prescribed manner determine the market-value and the duty including penalty and surcharge, if any, payable thereon; and if the amount of duty including penalty and surcharge, if any, already paid, is deficient, the deficient amount shall be payable by the person liable to pay the duty including penalty and surcharge, if any.

15. In the case of Sub-Registrar, Kodad Town and Mandal (Supra), the learned single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court felt persuaded on account of 30 years' long litigation and therefore, declined to send the papers back to the Collector for valuation at the market value. With great respect, the view taken by the learned single Judge is against the principles of interpretation of a taxing statute. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the view taken by the learned single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court is not correct.

16. Accordingly, we are of the opinion that the view taken by the learned single Judge as well as by the Division Bench cannot be sustained and the same is set aside. The Collector shall determine was the valuation of the instrument on the basis of the market value of the property at the date when the document was tendered by the respondent for registration, and the respondent shall pay the stamp duty charges and surcharge, if any, as assessed by the Collector as per the provisions of the Act. The appeal of the State is allowed. No order as to costs.
B. Ramakichenin @ Balagandhi vs Union Of India And Others

4. The appellant (respondent No. 3 in the Writ Petition) applied for the post of Deputy Director (Agriculture) in the Agriculture Department, Government of Pondicherry. That post was to be filled up by direct recruitment in pursuance of the advertisement issued by the Union Public Service Commission (hereinafter in short 'UPSC') dated 23.5.1998 inviting applications from eligible candidates.

9. Since the appellant was not called for the interview he filed OA. No. 1045/97 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai. By an interim order the Tribunal allowed the appellant to appear in the interview. Subsequently the Tribunal in its final order dated 23.6.2000 observed that since the appellant had been interviewed in pursuance of the interim order of the Tribunal, no further direction is required to be given in this connection and the result of the interview should be published. Accordingly the result was published and since the appellant was found first in the merit list, he was appointed as Deputy Director (Agriculture) on 23.3.2001, and has been working as such since then.

24. For the reasons given above, this appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside. The appellant has been working as Deputy Director (Agriculture) since 2001 in pursuance of the judgment of the Tribunal and the interim order of this Court, and we uphold his appointment. No costs.
Bijli Cotton Mill (Unit Of National ... vs U.P. Power Corporation Limited & Ors

3. Background facts as projected by the appellant are as follows:

13. The High Court is requested to consider the matter within four months of the receipt of the order of BIFR.

14. I.A. Nos.3 & 4 of 2006 have been filed by Anand Vrindaban (a partnership firm) for impleadment and directions. No order is necessary to be passed in those IAs, as it has no nexus with the issues involved in this appeal.

15. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent with no order as to costs.
Puspa Mayee Dasi & Ors vs Smt. Jyotsna Daw & Ors

JUDGMENT O R D E R This special leave petition was placed for consideration on 24.09.2007 on which day we dismissed the same, but directed that reasons shall follow which are recorded hereunder. The respondents filed a suit in the City Civil Court, Calcutta, for eviction of the defendants-petitioners from the suit premises on the grounds that the defendants changed user of the suit premises from residential to commercial, caused material deterioration in condition of the premises and made construction on the open terrace in the second floor of the premises in question without consent of the landlord. The defendants entered appearance and filed written statement contesting the claim for ejectment on all the grounds. During trial, the parties adduced evidence in support of their respective cases and upon conclusion of the same the trial court came to the conclusion that the plaintiff failed to prove the ground of change of user, but succeeded in proving the other two grounds and consequently passed a decree for eviction.

Against the order of eviction, the defendants preferred an appeal before the High Court which though reversed the finding of the trial court on the question of material deterioration in condition of the suit premises, but concurred with that of the trial court that the defendants made construction on the open terrace in the second floor of the premises in question without consent of the landlord and accordingly, the appeal was dismissed, against which order the present special leave petition was filed.

Having heard the parties and perused the records, we are of the opinion that the trial Court as well as the High Court were quite justified in recording the finding, that the defendants made construction on the open terrace in second floor of the suit premises without consent of the landlord, after taking into consideration the evidence adduced on behalf of the parties and no interference by this Court is called for. Special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.

The petitioners are granted time till 30th June, 2008 to vacate the premises in question upon filing usual undertaking within six weeks from today in this Court.
P.C. Chacko And Another vs Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation ...

3. Plaintiffs in the suit are the appellants herein. They filed the said suit inter alia for recovery of the amount of insurance on the death of one Chackochan (hereinafter referred to as the insured). The insured took an insurance policy on 21st February, 1987. He died on 6th July, 1987. On his death, the appellants herein claimed the insured amount. On the premise that the insured suppressed material facts, the policy had been repudiated by the respondent on 10th February, 1989. Non-disclosure and mis-statement in the proposal form to the various questions to which answers were given by the insured is said to be the reason for the aforementioned repudiation of the contract of insurance.

4. It now stands admitted that the insured had undergone an operation for Adenoma Thyroid. The particulars furnished by him while filling up the application form for obtaining the said policy were as under :-

The fact that the said answers were incorrect is not in dispute. The suit filed by the appellants, however, was decreed.

10. The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute. The insured had undergone an operation for Adenoma Thyroid. It was a major operation. Although the said operation was undergone by him four years prior to the date of the proposal made by him, he did not disclose thereabout prior to obtaining the insurance policy. We may notice that he died within six months from the date of taking of the policy i.e. on 6th July, 1987, policy having taken on 21st February, 1987.

No policy of life insurance effected before the commencement of this Act shall after the expiry of two years from the date of commencement of this Act and no policy of life insurance effected after the coming into force of this Act shall after the expiry of two years from the date on which it was effected, be called in question by an insurer on the ground that a statement made in the proposal for insurance or in any report of a medical officer, or referee, or friend of the insured, or in any other document leading to the issue of the policy, was inaccurate or false, unless the insurer shows that such statement was on a material matter or suppressed facts which it was material to disclose and that it was fraudulently made by the policy-holder and that the policy-holder knew at the time of making it that the statement was false or that it suppressed facts which it was material to disclose :

25. Ratio of the said decision, therefore, instead of assisting the case of appellants, runs counter to his contention.

26. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that no case has been made out for our interference with the impugned judgment. The appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs.