L-NLProc/TathyaNyaya-and-FactLegalLlama-NyayaScrape-Datasets huggingface dataset:
Dinesh Kumar J. @ Dinesh J, vs National Insurance Co. Ltd

CHETAN KUMAR Date: 2017.12.15 14:06:25 IST Reason: 2 3 On 18 June 2012, the appellant who was riding a motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-04/EL-4782 met with an accident with a mini lorry belonging to the Second and Third respondents. The lorry was insured with the First respondent. As a result of the accident, the appellant suffered grievous injuries. The medical certificate issued by the Bangalore Baptist Hospital (Exhibits P-13 and P-14) indicate spinal injuries.

4 The appellant was twenty six years of age on the date of the accident and was working as a patroller in a private company. His income was Rs.11,000/- per month. The appellant filed a claim for compensation before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, seeking compensation in the amount of Rupees 40 lakhs. The appellant examined a doctor (PW 5) who deposed that the extent of permanent physical disability of the spine was thirty four per cent. The tribunal did not accept that the disability was thirty four per cent, noting that the doctor in his cross examination admitted that he had not personally treated the appellant and that the medical evidence did not provide a cogent determination of the extent of disability. The Tribunal assessed the disability at ten per cent. The income of the appellant was taken at Rs 11,000 per month and a multiplier of seventeen was applied. The loss of income due to disability was computed at Rs 2,25,000. Medical expenses were computed at Rs 3,85,000. The Tribunal computed the total compensation (including conventional heads) at Rs 9 lakhs. However, the tribunal held that the appellant was guilty of contributory negligence to the extent 3 of forty per cent and hence granted sixty per cent of Rs 9 lakhs amounting to Rs 5.40 lakhs. In appeal, the High Court has enhanced the award of medical expenses by a further sum of Rs 1,77,775 on the basis of the bills produced by the appellant. On the aspect of contributory negligence, the High Court affirmed the finding of the tribunal. The award of compensation of Rs 9 lakhs has been enhanced to Rs 10,77,775 and, after making a deduction of forty per cent towards contributory negligence, the appellant has been held entitled to an amount of Rs 6,46,665. All the respondents have been held to be jointly and severally liable.

……......................................CJI [DIPAK MISRA] .................................................J [A M KHANWILKAR] ................................................J [Dr D Y CHANDRACHUD] New Delhi December 15, 2017
Urmila Devi vs The Deity Mandir Shree Chamunda Devi ...

3. The brief facts of the case which are necessary to notice for deciding the appeal are:

4. Before  the  High  Court a  submission  was  raised on behalf   of   defendant   No.6   that   the   land   has   been acquired during the pendency of Regular Second Appeal, the   decree   of   the   specific   performance   cannot   be maintained.     The   High   Court   agreeing   with   the submission   of   defendant   No.6   modified   the   decree   by ordering   respondent   Nos.2   to   6   to   pay   a   sum   of Rs.90,000/­   to   the   plaintiff   with   interest   @   9%   per annum   from   the   date   of   filing   of   the   suit.   The plaintiff   through   legal   heirs   aggrieved   by   the   said judgment has come up in this appeal.

17. The appeal is allowed accordingly.
Ramji Singh Patel vs Gyan Chandra Jaiswal

3. The respondent started running the business of Flour Mill, Oil Mill and Expeller, Ice Factory etc. which were operated on 2 electricity from his residential accommodation. The appellant, who is an advocate, is the owner and resident of the adjoining house, which has a common wall with the house of the respondent.

4. According to the appellant, from the year 2003 the respondent started operating the above said flour mill with machines, on diesel engine, which started causing severe vibrations and air pollution. The vibrations caused by the machines cracked the wall of the appellant and the pollution emitted was detrimentally affecting the health of the appellant and his family members. The appellant being an advocate also runs his chambers from his residence and, therefore, the severe vibration and air pollution also started adversely affecting his professional activities.

5. Due to the aforesaid harassment and nuisance the appellant made a complaint to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, who directed the Administrative Officer to file his report on the complaint of the appellant. The Administrative Officer, after enquiry, submitted his report on 02.12.2003.

6. Upon the report filed by the Administrative Officer, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate directed the Station House Officer to investigate the matter. The SHO directed the respondent to stop the nuisance and pollution but the respondent did not comply with the said direction. At that stage, the respondent filed Original Suit No. 2518/2003 against the appellant wherein the respondent prayed for perpetual injunction against the appellant from interfering in the running of the business of the respondent. 3

14. To sum up, we find that the High Court was in error in allowing the appeals in the aforesaid manner. These appeals are accordingly allowed, the impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside and the decree passed by the Courts below is restored.

15. No order as to costs.

JANUARY 11,2018
Shaikh Osmanali Chous vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

2. The appellant approached the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, Latur, Maharashtra for compensation in which it was held that he lost two toes of his left leg and that there were also burn injuries. The appellant was a driver. By order dated 09.07.2012 the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation awarded compensation of Rs.2,79,367/- with interest @ 12% per annum from the expiry of one month from the date of the accident till realization. The insurer, respondent No.1 herein, challenged the award before the High Court. The High Court as per the impugned order reduced the compensation to a meager sum of Rs.83,664/-.

7. In the above circumstances, we are of the view that the impugned order is to be set aside and that of the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation is to be restored. Ordered accordingly.

8. The appeal is allowed, as above.

9. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.

10. There shall be no orders as to costs.

JANUARY 16, 2018.
The State Of Himachal Pradesh vs Trilok Chand

2. In order to appreciate the merits of these appeals, brief facts as emerged from the prosecution case need to be noted at the outset. On 10th July, 2004, Anjani Kumar, Inspector, CID, Shimla (PW12), upon receiving a secret information that some people are pursuing the unlawful business of charas, proceeded towards Panarsa Bridge along with ASI Gian Chand (PW 9) and Constable Rakesh Kumar (PW 8) and some other police personnel. Amar Chand (PW 1) and Kuldeep Kumar (PW 2) who were going on that route at that time, also joined them as witnesses. At around 11.30 p.m. in the night, the accused—respondents herein arrived at that place carrying with them three gunny bags of contraband (Charas) and upon seeing police, they tried to run away. Police overpowered the accused and seized the contraband from their possession, prepared samples, sealed and marked them and registered the case. After investigation, charges were framed against the accused and upon their denial, the case was committed for trial.

13. In the light of the above discussion, in our considered opinion, the prosecution has failed to establish the commission of alleged offence by the accused—respondents beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence is scanty and lacking support to establish that 9 the contraband was really recovered from the possession of the respondents in the manner alleged by the prosecution on the said date and time. It is imperative that the law the Court should follow for awarding conviction under the provisions of N.D.P.S. Act is “stringent the punishment stricter the proof.” In such cases, the prosecution evidence has to be examined very zealously so as to exclude every chance of false implication. But, in the case on hand, under the above explained circumstances, the prosecution story cannot be believed to award conviction to the accused— respondents. They deserve benefit of doubt. We are, therefore, in complete agreement with the view taken by the High Court and see no reason to interfere with the order impugned herein.

14. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeals stand dismissed.
Shri Nagar Mal vs The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd

2 An accident took place on 15 November 2008 when at about 9 p.m. Sonu Kumar Goyal was proceeding on a motor cycle from Mandi Neem Ka Thana to his home. A truck bearing Registration No.RJ-32-GA-0398 dashed against the motor cycle as a result of which Sonu Kumar sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. The third respondent is the registered owner of the motor vehicle which was insured with the first respondent. The appellants filed a claim Digitally signed by SATISH KUMAR YADAV Date: 2018.01.19 17:03:28 TLT Reason: for compensation before the Tribunal. By its order dated 16 July 2013 the 2 Tribunal held that the accident was caused due to the negligence of the driver of the truck. The insurer was held jointly and severally liable together with the owner and driver.

8 The appeal is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

...........................................CJI [DIPAK MISRA] ...........................................J [A M KHANWILKAR] ...........................................J [Dr D Y CHANDRACHUD] New Delhi;
State Of Punjab And Ors vs Thuru Ram

3. Land of the respondent was acquired along with trees standing on it for construction of 3 Hydel Channel. A notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) was issued on 12.01.1990 and the declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made on 28.02.1990.

Reference Court had rejected the reference sought by the respondent holding that the award made by the Land Acquisition Collector was proper and 5 correct. The respondent approached the High Court of Punjab & Haryana by filing the appeal which came to be allowed by the impugned judgment and reference was accepted awarding compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,77,377/- for the standing trees on the acquired land 6 along with other statutory benefits as per Sections 23(1-A), 23(2) and 28 of the Act. Hence, this appeal by the State.

Such trees were 4 to 5 years old. The expert examined by the respondent 12 i.e. AW-2 Sunder Singh is a retired District Agricultural Officer who served for 34 years in various capacities. According to his report total value of all the trees was Rs.6,35,114.70. Certain other factors such as distance of land from the town etc. are also deposed by him.

Per contra, the Patwari (RW-1) examined on behalf of the appellant State has produced khasra girdawari register of the relevant village in respect of certain years. The total area of the acquired land belonging to the respondent is 7 kanals 2 marlas (less than 1 acre). In 1985-86, wheat and other crops were shown to have sown in the land. However, subsequently orchard (Bagicha) has been added with different ink in the crops column and according to him such entry was made, i.e. adding the word Bagicha, without any order from the competent authority. No initials were also found. According to RW-2, Horticulture Development Officer the acquired trees of the respondent were found to be of ‘D’ category. He has given the value of every kind of standing fruit trees. The valuation of RW-2 is far less than the valuation provided by AW-2.

9. In view of the above, it is clear that the High Court has over looked certain material aspects of the evidence before coming to the conclusion. The High Court needs to consider the entire material in proper perspective afresh. Hence, the matter is to be remitted to the High Court 17 of Punjab & Haryana for fresh disposal in accordance with law.

Ordered accordingly, the matter is remitted to the High Court.

The impugned judgment is set aside. Appeal stands disposed off accordingly. .................................................J. (ARUN MISHRA) .................................................J. (MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR) New Delhi Dated: January 19, 2018
Issac @ Kishore vs Ronald Cheriyan

3. Briefly stated case of the prosecution is that, the ASHA SUNDRIYAL Date: 2018.01.23 17:12:31 IST deceased-Brijitha was sixty three years old widow and used to stay Reason:

4. After registration of FIR, the Inspector of Police, during investigation prepared the spot panchnama (scene mahazar) and also taken the finger prints from the scene of crime. The appellant-accused no.1 was arrested on 07.02.2006 at 06.20 p.m. who gave a disclosure statement; based on which, accused no.2 was located and arrested on the same day at 08.00 p.m. Confession statement of accused no.2 led to recovery of gold ornaments, currency notes and shawl which was used to suffocate the deceased, from the house of accused no.2. Also, the grey hair found on the shawl were preserved for further investigation. The post-mortem report disclosed that death of the deceased was caused due to smothering. After completion of the Page No. 3 of 11 investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the appellant-accused no.1 under Section 394 IPC and Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC.

(a), the Court may reverse the order of acquittal and direct that further enquiry be made or the accused may be retried or may find him guilty and pass sentence on him according to law.

15. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. The trial court shall proceed with the matter as per the directions of the High Court and dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible. No costs.

January 23, 2018 Page No. 11 of 11
Dashrath @ Jolo vs State Of Chhattisgarh

3. Briefly stated case of the prosecution is that, on 03.08.2008 at about 1.30 p.m., PW-19-Birichram went to the house of one Bhojram for inviting him for the sixth day birth of his child (chhati). The appellants who are neighbours of Bhojram and were standing in front of their houses, threatened PW-19 that they will kill him. When PW-19 asked the appellants not to abuse, appellant Dashrath @ Jolo who was having battleaxe alongwith one Phodol @ Duryodhan (since dead) who was also having 1 battleaxe and one Jagru (since dead) who was holding kudari and some others who were holding sticks, assaulted PW-19. PW-14-Chumbai and PW-17-Gayatri Bai who were coming towards the spot tried to intervene in the incident. At the same time, deceased Chhedilal who was also coming towards his field requested the appellants not to beat PW-19; but the appellants leaving PW-19, started assaulting Chhedilal. Phodol @ Duryodhan (since dead) crushed the head of Chhedilal by blunt part of battleaxe. At the same time, deceased Bhuru @ Parmanand, deceased Bablu, PW-20-Dilip Kumar Yadav and PW-21-Rajesh Yadav also came to the spot one by one and tried to intervene, but the appellants assaulted all of them and caused the death of Chhedilal, Bablu and Bhuru @ Parmanand on the spot. PW-19-Birichram and PW-20-Dilip Kumar Yadav sustained injuries.

4. All accused were arrested and based on their disclosure statement, battleaxe was recovered from appellant Dashrath @ Jolo and; Kudari recovered from Jagru @ Mohanlal; sticks recovered from appellants Anand and Laxmi. Blood stained clothes were also recovered from the accused. Thereafter, all the seized articles were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) for chemical examination and presence of blood upon clothes and weapons has been confirmed vide FSL Report (Ex.P-71). After completion of 2 investigation, chargesheet was filed against the appellants and other accused.

6. Being aggrieved, all the accused filed appeals before the High Court. During pendency of the appeal before the High Court, accused Phodol @ Duryodhan and Mohal Lal died. High Court dismissed the appeal preferred by appellants herein (Dashrath @ Jolo, Anand and Laxmi) and confirmed the conviction and sentence of imprisonment imposed upon them by the trial court. The lady accused viz. Dujmati and Triveni Bai were acquitted by the High Court.

11. Upon appreciation of evidence and on well considered reasonings, the trial court as well as the High Court rightly convicted the appellants/accused under Section 302 IPC read with Section 149 IPC and other offences. We find no ground to interfere with the verdict of conviction and the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon the appellants/accused. The appeals are dismissed.

January 23, 2018 6
N.C. Bansal vs Uttar Pradesh Financial Corporation

3) In order to decide the short question, it is not necessary to set out the facts in detail and mentioning of the few facts alone would suffice.

5) The appellant is the plaintiff and the respondents are the defendants in the suit out of which this appeal arises.

9) The appellant felt aggrieved and filed appeal being R.C.A. 121/14/11 before the Additional District Judge, Tis Hazari Court, New Delhi. By 4 order dated 20.11.2014, the first Appellate Court allowed the appellant's appeal and while setting aside the judgment/decree of the Trial Court remanded the case to the Trial Court for deciding the suit on merits.

13) The appellant felt aggrieved and filed writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in the High Court of Delhi. By impugned order, the Single Judge dismissed the appellant's (plaintiff’s) writ petition and upheld the order of the Trial Court.

19) So far as the filing of documents is concerned, this application too should have been allowed on the same grounds on which we have allowed the amendment application. In other words, when the suit is still at its initial stage and the trial is yet to begin and when the documents filed are alleged to be that of the respondents themselves having obtained through RTI, there is no reason why the appellant(plaintiff) be not allowed to file them.

20) So far as the third application for production of documents by the respondents is concerned, no argument was advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant. We, therefore, uphold the order of its rejection by the two Courts below. In other words, our order is confined to consideration of only two applications mentioned above.

22) In view of forgoing discussion, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order is set aside so also the order dated 21.09.2016 is set aside to the extent indicated above. As a consequence, the two applications filed by the appellant(plaintiff), i.e., one filed under Order 7 Rule 14 and the other under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code are allowed, however, subject to the appellant paying a cost of Rs.10,000/- to the respondents. Let the cost be paid by the appellant to the respondents within one month.

23) Let the amendment be incorporated in the plaint as proposed by the plaintiff in his application for amendment within one month. The respondent is granted an opportunity to amend their written statement and make consequential amendment in reply to the amended plea of the plaintiff (appellant).

24) The appellant(plaintiff) is also allowed to file the additional documents, as prayed by him. The respondent(defendant) is also granted an opportunity to file additional documents in rebuttal, if they so desire.

January 25, 2018 12
H.V.Nirmala vs R.Sharmila

4. The appellants are defendant Nos. 2 and 3, whereas respondent No.1 is the plaintiff and respondent No. 2 is defendant No. 1 in the civil suit, out of which this appeal arises.

5. The dispute is essentially between the family members and it relates to certain immovable properties originally belonged to the Head of the family known as - Ramaiah. The family tree would be useful to appreciate the issues.

7. On 11.10.1995, Umesh (defendant No.1) filed a civil suit being O.S. No.7266 of 1996 against Nirmala and Rakesh Babu. This suit was filed for partition of the properties owned by late Ramaiah Reddy. It was based on the Will dated 20.05.1995 said to have been executed by Ramaiah in favour of three parties to the suit.

12. By the impugned judgment/decree, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment/decree of the Trial Court and decreed the plaintiff's suit. The High Court held that the plaintiff was able to prove the Will dated 12.03.1980 in accordance with law with the evidence adduced by 5 her and hence she was entitled for a declaration as claimed by her in the suit relating to the suit properties. Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 felt aggrieved by the impugned judgment of the High Court and filed this appeal by special leave in this Court.

16. Having examined, we are inclined to concur with the reasoning of the High Court and accordingly answer the question in favour of respondent No.1, i.e., the plaintiff and against the appellants (defendant Nos. 2 and 3). In other words, we hold that the plaintiff was able to prove the Will dated 12.03.1980 in accordance with law and there is no reason to hold otherwise. This we say for the following reasons.

19. As a consequence thereof, we find no merit in this appeal, which fails and is accordingly dismissed.

………………………………..J (R.K. AGRAWAL) ..………………………………J. (ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE) New Delhi, January 25, 2018 10
M/S. Neerja Realtors Pvt. Ltd. vs Janglu (Dead) Thr. Lr

14 The record before the Court would indicate that the Trial Court by its order dated 9 February 2011 directed the issuance of summons to the original 6 defendant, returnable on 15 March 2011. In pursuance of the order, summons were issued on 4 March 2011. The report of the bailiff dated 11 April 2011 indicates that the summons were returned unserved and the bailiff was informed that the original defendant had left the premises nearly two years earlier and resided elsewhere.

The right of appeal is not taken away by filing an application under Order IX Rule 13. But if the appeal is dismissed as a result of which the ex-parte decree merges with the order of the Appellate Court, a petition under Order IX Rule 13 would not be maintainable. When an application under Order IX Rule 13 is dismissed, the remedy of the defendant is under Order XLIII Rule 1. However, once such an appeal is dismissed, the same contention cannot be raised in a first appeal under Section 96. The three Judge bench decision in Bhanu Kumar Jain has been followed by another bench of three Judges in Rabindra Singh v Financial Commissioner, Cooperation, Punjab2 and by a two Judge bench in Mahesh Yadav v Rajeshwar Singh3. In the present case, the original defendant chose a remedy of first appeal under Section 96 and was able to establish before the High Court, adequate grounds for setting aside the judgment and decree.

2 (2008) 7 SCC 663 3 (2009) 2 SCC 205 10 17 For the above reasons, we find no reason to interfere with the judgment and order of the High Court. The appeal accordingly stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

...........................................CJI [DIPAK MISRA] ...........................................J [A M KHANWILKAR] ...........................................J [Dr D Y CHANDRACHUD] New Delhi;

January 29, 2018