L-NLProc/TathyaNyaya-and-FactLegalLlama-NyayaScrape-Datasets huggingface dataset:
Zelia M.Xavier Fernandes E.Gonsalves vs Joana Rodrigues & Ors

3. The appellant was declared as a returned candidate from Ward No. 9 of Raia Village Panchayat of Salcete Taluka, State of Goa at the election held in May 2007 for a period 2007-2012.

4. On or about March 18, 2008, the respondent no. 2-- Village Panchayat of Raia -- invited bids for the collection of market fee within its jurisdiction for 2008-09. Mrs. Joana Rodrigues (respondent no. 1), Xavier Fernandes (appellant's husband) and one Bernard Mario Fernandes submitted their bids. On March 28, 2008, the tender forms were opened in the office of the respondent no. 2 and the bid of the appellant's husband was accepted as his bid was the highest. Her husband, on acceptance of his bid, paid the first installment of 1/4th part of the bidding amount collection.

5. On March 31, 2008, the respondent no. 1 made a representation to the Deputy Director of Panchayat, Madgaon, Goa bringing to his notice that the appellant was liable for disqualification under Section 10(f) of the 1994 Act. It appears that the respondent no. 1 also made an application to the State Election Commission (for short, `Commission), State of Goa, on which the Commission 2 directed the respondent no. 1 to file a formal election petition seeking disqualification of the appellant. Accordingly, the respondent no. 1 filed an election petition under Section 11 before the Commission for disqualification of the appellant on the ground that she has directly or indirectly a share or monetary interest in the above contract given by the respondent no. 2 to her husband.

6. The Commission, on hearing the parties, vide its order dated July 3, 2009 held that the present appellant had indirectly a share or monetary interest in the contract executed by the Village Panchayat of Raia with her husband and ordered that the appellant was disqualified as a Panch Member of Village Panchayat of Raia in Salcete Taluka in terms of clause (f) of Section 10.

7. The appellant, aggrieved by the above order of the Commission, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Bombay at Goa. The Single Judge of that Court on July 22, 2009 dismissed the writ petition. It is from this order of the High Court that this appeal, by special leave, has arisen.

17. There is no dispute that the respondent no. 4 and the appellant are husband and wife and are governed by the provisions of the 1860 Code. By virtue of Article 1098 and Article 1108 thereof, in the absence of any contract, the marriage between the appellant 10 and the respondent no. 4 is governed by the system `Communiao Dos Bens' i.e. community of property. Accordingly, on marriage, the property of the spouses gets merged. Each spouse, by operation of law, unless contracted otherwise, becomes 50% shareholder in all their properties, present and future and each spouse is entitled to a one-half income of the other spouse.

xxx xxx xxx".

24. Civil Appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.

(R.M. Lodha) .............................
Ashok Kumar vs District Magistrate,Basti & Anr

3. The facts, in nutshell, are :

4. Pursuant to the direction so issued by the High Court, while disposing of the Writ Petition, the District Magistrate, Basti has passed an order dated 15.02.2002, inter alia, holding that the appellant's father had expired after he retired from service, on attaining the age of superannuation and therefore, the appellant cannot seek for compassionate appointment. This order again became a subject matter of a Writ Petition.

7. The Division Bench vide its order dated 12.02.2007 after taking into consideration the inordinate unexplained delay and also that the appellant's father had retired from service, after attaining the age of superannuation, has rejected the appeal both on the ground of limitation as well as on merits. The correctness or otherwise of the said order is the subject matter of these appeals.

14. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the appellant has not made out a case for our interference. Accordingly, the appeals stands dismissed. No costs.

Ordered accordingly.

FEBRUARY 07, 2012
Absar Alam @ Afsar Alam vs State Of Bihar

2. For deciding this question, the relevant facts as have been found by the trial court are that in the midnight of 14/15.02.2007, the appellant killed his mother by cutting her neck and severing her head and thereafter fled from the house with the head of his mother leaving behind her body. The trial court, after convicting the appellant under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (for short `IPC'), held that the appellant committed the murder of his mother in an extremely brutal, grotesque, diabolical and revolting manner and hence it is one of those rarest of the rare cases calling for a death sentence on the appellant. The High Court, while upholding the conviction, confirmed the death sentence relying on the decision of this Court in Machhi Singh and others v. State of Punjab [(1983) 3 SCC 470]. In the aforesaid case of Machhi Singh, this Court has inter alia held that the manner of commission of murder and the personality of the victim of murder have to be taken into consideration while making the choice of the sentence to be imposed for the offence under Section 302, IPC : life 3 imprisonment or death sentence. The High Court has taken a view that considering the abhorrent, dastardly and diabolical nature of the crime committed by the appellant on none other than his mother, who had given birth to him, the penalty of death has been rightly awarded by the trial court.

5. We find on reading the FIR lodged by the brother of the appellant on the morning of 15.02.2007 at 09:45 hours marked as Ext.2 that the appellant's wife Sakerun Nisha had run away to her maternal house three or four days before the incident and the appellant had been accusing his mother to have been the cause of his wife running away from this house and out of anger and excitement the appellant severed the neck of his mother and fled with the head. The appellant was an illiterate rustic and was a cultivator residing in a village with virtually no control over his emotions and has over-reacted impulsively to the situation and has severed the neck of his mother. On these facts, the appellant is no doubt guilty of the offence under Section 302, IPC, and has to suffer the punishment of imprisonment for life normally awarded for the offence, but should not be condemned to death.

8. For the aforesaid reasons, we convert the sentence of death to one of life imprisonment for the offence under Section 302, IPC, committed by the appellant and allow the appeal in part.
Acg Associated Capsules P.Ltd vs C.I.T Central-Iv Mumbai

2. The facts of this case very briefly are that Bharat Rasayan Limited (for short `the assessee') filed a return of income tax claiming a deduction of Rs.72,76,405/- under Section 80HHC of the Act. In the assessment order, the Assessing Officer held that ninety per cent of the gross interest has to be excluded from the profits of the business of the assessee under Explanation (baa) to Section 80HHC of the Act and deducted ninety per cent of the gross interest of Rs.50,26,284/- from the profits of the business of the assessee. The assessee preferred an appeal contending that only ninety per cent of the net interest should have been deducted from the profits of the business of the assessee under Explanation (baa) to Section 80HHC, but the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) rejected this contention of the assessee. Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short `the Tribunal') and the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee and held that the assessee was entitled to deduct the expenses from the interest received and only ninety per cent of the net amount of interest could be excluded under Explanation (baa) to Section 80HHC and remitted the 1 matter to the Assessing Officer to examine whether there is factually an excess between the interest paid and interest received and take a fresh decision. The Revenue filed an appeal against the order of the Tribunal before the High Court, but by the impugned order the High Court following its decision in Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Shri Ram Honda Power Equip (supra) sustained the order of the Tribunal and dismissed the appeal.

16. In the result, we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order of the High Court and remand the matter to the Assessing Officer to work out the deductions from rent and interest in accordance with this judgment. No costs.

CIVIL APPEAL No. 4534 OF 2008 This is an appeal against the order dated 19.01.2007 of the Delhi High Court in I.T.A. No. 541 of 2006.

3. We have held in our judgment in the case of M/s ACG Associated Capsules Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax that ninety per cent of not the gross interest but only the net interest, which has been included in the profits of the business of the assessee as computed under the heads `Profits and Gains of Business or Profession' is to be deducted under clause (1) of Explanation (baa) to Section 80HHC for determining the profits of the business. Since, the view taken by the High Court in the impugned order is consistent with our aforesaid view, we find no merit in this appeal and we accordingly dismiss the same. There shall be no order as to costs.

..........................CJI.
Vikas Kalra vs C.I.T

3. The facts very briefly are that the appellant is engaged in manufacturing and exporting leather garments. For the assessment years 2001-2002 and 2004-2005, the appellant filed returns of income claiming deductions in respect of profits retained for export business under Section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short `the Act'). The Assessing Officer held in the assessment orders that the entire sale value of Duty Entitlement Pass Book (for short `DEPB') represents profit on transfer of DEPB under Section 28(iiid) of the Act and did not allow the amount of deduction claimed by the appellant under Section 80HHC. The appellant filed appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) but the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) sustained the orders of the Assessing Officer. The appellant filed appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short `the Tribunal') and the Tribunal following the order dated 11.08.2009 of the Special Bench of the Tribunal at 3 Mumbai in the case of M/s Topman Exports allowed the appeals and held that the face value of the DEPB will be `cash assistance' against export and will fall under Section 28(iiib) of the Act and the sale value less the face value of the DEPB will be profit on transfer of DPB and will fall under Section 28(iiid) of the Act.

Shri Ram Honda Power Equip [(2007) 289 ITR 475 (Delhi)].

Kalpataru Colours and Chemicals. We have also delivered a separate judgment in Civil Appeal arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.32450 of 2010 (M/s ACG Associated Capsules Private Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-IV, Mumbai) and other connected appeal affirming the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Shri Ram Honda Power Equip (supra).

These two appeals are disposed of in terms of our 5 aforesaid two judgments. There shall be no order as to costs.

..........................CJI.
Raja Mechanical Co.(P) Ltd vs Commnr. Of Central Excise, Delhi-I

2. The facts in nutshell are that the assessee is a manufacturer of dutiable excisable goods. For its manufacturing activity, it had purchased certain capital goods, namely Windsor Model Injection Moulding Machine and screw assembly along with tool kit falling under Chapter sub heading 8477.10. The assessee has availed a MODVAT Credit of Rs. 1,47,000/- by filing a declaration dated 30.6.1995 under Rule 57T(1), whereby it declared the receipt of the said goods from M/s D.G.P. Windsor India Ltd. vide invoice dated 18.6.1995, along with the application for condonation of delay, before the adjudicating authority/assessing authority. However, the said declaration was not filed within the time prescribed under the ‘Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short ‘the Act’) and the rules framed thereunder. Accordingly, the adjudicating authority had issued a show cause notice dated 11.10.1995 to the assessee, inter alia, directing it to show cause as to why the MODVAT credit to the tune of Rs.1,47,000/-, availed by it, should not be disallowed and recovered under Rule 57G of the central Excise Rules, 1944 (for short ‘the Rules’) read with Section 11A of the Act and, further directed it to show cause as to why penalty under Rule 173Q of the Rules should not be imposed. Thereafter, a Corrigendum dated 23.4.1997 to the Show cause notice was issued to the assessee, inter alia, directing it to show cause to the Assistant Commissioner instead of the Deputy Collector, as mentioned in the Show cause notice dated 11.10.1995. The assessee was further directed to show cause as to why the penalty under Section 11AC should not be imposed and, further, interest should not be recovered under Section 11AB of the Act.

12. The question now that falls for our consideration and decision is whether the Tribunal was justified in not considering the case of the assessee on merits. The assessee's stand before the Tribunal and before this Court is that the orders passed by the adjudicating authority would merge with the orders passed by the first appellate authority and the Tribunal ought to have considered the appeal filed by the assessee on merits also. In our opinion, the same cannot be accepted. In view of the plethora of decisions of this Court, wherein this Court has, categorically, observed that if for any reason an appeal is dismissed on the ground of limitation and not on merits, that order would not merge with the orders passed by the first appellate authority. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion, that the High Court was justified in rejecting the request made by the assessee for directing the revenue to state the case and also the question of law for its consideration and decision. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in this appeal.

13. Accordingly, the appeal stands rejected. No costs.

Ordered accordingly.

APRIL 19, 2012
Union Of India vs Chairman, U.P.S.E.B. & Ors

3. Thereafter, Railways started constructing transmission lines from Dadri Gas Power Plant and Auraria Gas Power Plant of NTPC upto the sub-station of Railways at Dadri, District Ghaziabad, U.P. This led to UPSEB to issue a threat to demolish the said transmission lines, and a notice was issued to the Railways on 7.9.1999. The notice was issued by the Superintendent Engineer, Electricity Transmission Circle, U.P. State Electricity Board, Ghaziabad, U.P. to the Chief Electrical Engineer (Construction), Northern Railways, Tilak Bridge, New Delhi, 3 calling upon the Railways to immediately stop the activity of construction of distribution/service lines. The notice further stated that if the Railways did not stop or refrain from these activities inspite of receipt of the notice, UPSEB will be constrained to take steps of its own for demolition of the said lines and will also sue for damages suffered or to be suffered by UPSEB consequent upon this construction.

4. This notice led the Railways to file Writ Petition No.6802/1999 in the High Court of Delhi to challenge the said notice. The High Court vide its order dated 9.11.1999 stayed operation of this notice/order. The High Court subsequently passed another order on 12.5.2000 allowing the Railways to carry on their work of construction.

16. In the circumstances, the notice dated 7.9.1999 given by the UPSEB was totally uncalled for, and is required to be quashed and set-aside. Accordingly, the Transferred Case No.37/2001 will have to be allowed, and Transferred Case No.38/2001 will have to be dismissed.

17. In the circumstances, we pass the following order:-
Aradadi Ramudu & Aggiramudu vs State,Rep.By Insp. Of ...

3. The deceased (Gangammal) was the wife of appellant-accused. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused was an alcoholic, and habitually beating his wife after picking up a quarrel with her for silly reasons. He also didn't reside under the same roof with her, and only occasionally visited her. Gangammal was eking her livelihood by working as a domestic servant. At the time of the incident, Gangammal and the accused had a son and a daughter.

4. It appears that on the previous night of the incident, the accused severely beat Gangammal as he doubted her fidelity. On 13.08.1997, around 6.45 a.m., the accused attacked her neck with a kitchen knife, causing her to bleed profusely, which ultimately led to her death.

5. It has come in the evidence of P.W.2 (the neighbour) that she barged into the Gangammal's house on hearing her shriek in pain, and found Gangammal in a severely injured condition. In her evidence, she has also stated that Gangammal told her that the accused had caused the knife injury on her neck. Thereafter, P.W.2 has deposed that she 2 asked Gangammal to change her blood soaked saree and arranged for a rickshaw puller to shift Gangammal from the house to the Government Hospital at Yanam.

17. There is concurrent affirmative finding of fact by both the Courts below regarding the intention of the accused to kill the deceased.

24. In view of the above, we do not see any merit in this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed.

Ordered accordingly.
Md. Masaud Alam vs State Of Bihar & Ors

3) The case has a chequered history. The appellant was appointed as police constable by the respondents in the month of October, 1992 and he served on this post till 1996. The appellant amongst others, was asked to show cause why his services should not be terminated for the reasons stated in the notice. The appellant, after receipt of the notice, had offered his explanation, inter-

alia, contending that his appointment was made following the guidelines prescribed in Police Order No.202 of 1988. The respondents, not being satisfied with the explanation offered, terminated the services of the appellant. The appellant and others filed the writ petitions, inter-alia, for quashing their termination order as illegal and arbitrary.

4) The learned single Judge, while allowing the writ petition, took exception to lack of reasoning in the show cause notice and orders of termination, however, as the respondents attempted to justify the termination on the ground that the height of the writ petitioners was not in accordance with the Police Order No. 202 of 1988, the learned Single Judge 2 thought it fit to direct the Deputy Inspector General of Police (Headquarters), Patna [hereinafter referred to as "the DIG of police"], to measure the height of the writ petitioners (including the appellant) and file a report of the same before the Court.

13) Now the only question that remains to be considered is, while directing the appellant to be reinstated in service whether the respondents should be directed to pay back wages also from the date of termination of the appellant's service till his reinstatement.

14) In view of the peculiar facts and circumstance of this case, we allow this appeal, set aside the judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Patna in LPA No.583/2006 dated 30.04.2010. We further direct the respondents to reinstate the appellant into service as a constable within three month's time from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. We make it clear that the appellant will not be entitled to back-wages from the date of the termination of his service till his reinstatement into service. However, the period between the date of termination and the date of reinstatement will be considered for the purpose of computing the qualifying service for payment of the pensionary benefits only.

15) We clarify that this order is passed by us only in the facts and circumstances of this 8 case and not to be read as declaration of the law by us. The question of law canvassed by Shri. Manish Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent-State is left open.

16) With this observation and direction, this appeal is disposed of. No costs.
Ntpc Limited vs Ansaldo Caldaie Boilers India P.Ld.& ...

based Thermal Power Projects in different areas. The bid of the Respondent No.1 was rejected by the Appellant by its letter dated 5th January, 2011, as the same did not meet the minimum qualifying requirements set out in the Bid documents. Furthermore, the Qualified Steam Generator Manufacturer, Ansaldo Caldaie, Italy, proposed by the said Respondent, did not have the necessary minimum qualification, as was required in terms of the Bid documents.

5. Indisputably, none of the parties which responded to the invitation adopted Routes 1 or 3. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. adopted Route 2, while Route 4 found favour with Larsen & Toubro, MHI and the Appellant, while BGR took recourse to Route 5. Route 4 contained in Clause 7.4.0 relates to Indian Joint Venture Companies for manufacturing of Super Critical Steam Generators in India between an Indian Company and a Qualified Steam Generator Manufacturer. For the sake of reference, Clauses 7.4.1 and 7.4.2 which formed part of Route 4 are extracted hereinbelow :-

Manufacturer and other JV promoter having 25% or higher equity participation in the JV Company, in which all the executants of DJU shall be jointly and severally liable to the Employer for successful performance of contract as per the format enclosed in the bidding documents. The joint deed of undertaking shall be submitted along with techno-commercial bid, failing which the Bidder shall be disqualified and his bid shall be rejected.

28. In that view of the matter, we allow the Appeal and set aside the impugned judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court allowing the Writ Petition filed by the Respondent No.1. The Writ Petition filed by the Respondent No.1, therefore, stands dismissed.

29. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.
Mohamed Ibrahim & Ors vs Vinayaka Mission Univ.& Ors

4. The Government of India, vide notification dated October 10, 2006, accorded its approval to the proposal of Vinayaka Mission's Research Foundation, Salem, now Vinayaka 3 Mission University (for short "VMRF") as a deemed University for starting an Off-shore Campus offering medical programmes at Bangkok, Thailand with an intake capacity and conditions of 100 undergraduate medical students per annum on the terms and conditions mentioned in the Memorandum of Understanding dated September 19, 2004 between VMRF and Rangsit University, Thailand. The approval so granted was subject to certain conditions mentioned at serial No. 9 of the endorsement of the above Notification. The relevant conditions are as under:

9. Based on the above certificate, these students applied for screening test through VMRF to the National Board of Examination (NBE). NBE did not respond to such applications. VMRF then moved to the Madras High Court during vacation. The Vacation Judge issued certain directions. Pursuant thereto, 21 students appeared in the screening test. Of these 21 students, 4 cleared the screening test. The Writ Petition ultimately came to be allowed. NBE challenged the judgment and order of the Single 7 Judge in intra court appeal before the Division Bench. The Division Bench allowed the appeal and set-aside the judgment and order of the Single Judge.

12. Admittedly, the provisional degree awarded by the VMRF to these students is not recognised by the Medical Council of Thailand. These students, who claim to have completed their course in the off-shore campus of VMRF, are not entitled to register the degree awarded to them by VMRF with the Medical Council of Thailand. The provisional degree awarded by VMRF to these students, therefore, does not amount to primary medical qualification. The view taken by the Division Bench that the students do not possess eligibility of primary medical qualification, thus, cannot 8 be said to suffer from any illegality.

14. Civil Appeals are, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs.