L-NLProc/TathyaNyaya-and-FactLegalLlama-NyayaScrape-Datasets huggingface dataset:
State Of M.P vs Mehtaab

3. On 22nd November, 1997, the deceased Sushila Bai wife of PW 4 Ram Charan along with her husband was returning from Village Ragho Garh to their home in village Kudhaidher. The respondent accused had drawn electricity wire from the pole upto his field which was not visible in the darkness. Ram Charan got trapped in the wire and became unconscious. The deceased Sushila Bai received electric shock in the process of removing the wire. On receiving the information PW 5 Mishrilal, brother of Sushila Bai and PW 1 Kallu reached the site of the incident along with PW 3 Goverdhan and PW 2 Somlal. It was found that Sushila Bai had died while Ram Charan was injured but alive. He was taken to the hospital. FIR was lodged. Post mortem was conducted on the dead body and after investigation, the respondent accused was sent up for trial under Section 304-A/337 IPC. The accused denied the allegations and alleged that he was falsely implicated.

4. The prosecution examined PW 6 Dr. N.K. Sharma to the effect that the deceased and Ram Charan received injuries by electric current and that Sushila Bai had died due to shock of the current. PW 1 Kallu as well as PW 4 Ram Charan clearly deposed that the wire was laid by Mehtaab from the pole to the field which was lying naked and resulted in the death of Sushila Bai. This action clearly amounted to the offence alleged. The said evidence was corroborated by the other witnesses. Accordingly, the trial Court convicted the respondent-accused under Section 304A and 337 IPC and sentenced him to undergo RI for one year and pay fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo further RI for one month under Section 304-A and to undergo RI for three months under Section 337 IPC. The conviction and sentence having been upheld by the Court of Session, the respondent preferred a revision petition before the High Court. The respondent did not challenge his conviction but only sought reduction in sentence of imprisonment. The said prayer was accepted and the sentence was reduced to the period already undergone.

11. The appeal is accordingly allowed to the above extent.
State Of Karnataka Tr.Sec.Hsg.& ... vs Vasavadatta Cement & Anr

3. The factual matrix of the case is as follows:

4. The first respondent filed another Writ Petition No. 14554/96 before the High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore challenging the said notification and the same was summarily dismissed on 19th August, 1997 observing that the matter is covered by the decision rendered in another case. A Civil Petition No.1233/2000 in WP No. 14554/1996 was filed by respondent to rectify the order passed by the learned Single Judge. While reviewing the said order, the petition was allowed on 20th August, 2001 and the order dated 19th August, 1997 passed in the writ petition No. 14554/1996 was set aside and the said writ petition was restored. However, after hearing the parties, the learned Single Judge on 24th May, 2004 dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the action of inclusion of an area to the limits of an existing Town Municipal Limits is essentially a conditional legislation and hence judicial intervention is not warranted.

5. Against the said order, the respondent preferred the writ appeal No. 2999/2004 which was allowed by the Division Bench by impugned judgment dated 23rd June, 2010.

Ref.: Govt. Circular, bearing No.:NE:407:MLR:95, Bangalore, Dated 26.09.1995

With reference to the above subject, the public of the Town Municipal area are informed that vide Circular stated in the reference, the boundaries of Sedam Town Municipalities is proposed to be altered to extend the municipal area. Any person having objections to the said proposal can file their written objections within 30 days. The public area hereby informed of the same by this notification.

Chief Officer SEDAM"

The Chief Secretary, State of Karnataka is directed to hold an inquiry with regard to notification No. TMC:SEDAM:95-96 dated 3rd October, 1995 issued from the office TMC, Sedam, signed by Chief Officer, Sedam in green ink wherein nine places have been shown for posting the notifications. If it is found to be a document created subsequently, an FIR to this effect be lodged against the concerned officials for forging documents. Departmental proceedings be also initiated and an appropriate action be taken.

22. The appeal is allowed with the aforesaid observations and directions.
N.M.Krishnakumari & Ors vs Thalakkal Assiya & Ors

For the purpose of considering the rival legal contentions urged on behalf of the parties in these appeals, with a view to find out whether this Court is required to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of the High Court, the necessary facts are briefly stated hereunder:

Thus, we are of the considered view that the power exercised by the High Court under Section 103 of the Act has been rightly exercised by it in setting aside the judgment and order of the Appellate Authority, as the same is not only erroneous but also error in law for the aforesaid reasons. The appeals are dismissed.
Jakir Hussein vs Sabir & Ors

3. The relevant facts of the case are stated as under:

4. The appellant filed Claim Petition No. 3 of 2009 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal/Additional First Member, Mandsor, Madhya Pradesh. The Tribunal determined the permanent disability suffered by the appellant on account of the motor vehicle accident at 30% and his monthly income was taken at Rs.3,000/- for the purpose of assessing annual income of the appellant to compute his loss of future earnings. On the basis of the annual income, his future loss of income due to permanent disability suffered by him was estimated at Rs.1,72,800/- and loss of income at Rs.51,000/-. Medical expenses was estimated at Rs.1,80,000/-. The total compensation of Rs.4,38,000/- with an interest at the rate of 7% p.a. was awarded to the appellant by the Tribunal as against a claim of Rs.8,80,000/- made by him.

5. Aggrieved by the award of the Tribunal regarding inadequate compensation, the appellant filed M.A. No. 3414 of 2010 before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore. The High Court opined that the income of appellant has been taken on the lower side by the Tribunal and determined the same at Rs.4,000/- per month. The High Court after re-determination of the compensation held that the appellant is entitled to an enhancement of Rs.1,77,200/- towards permanent disability and addition of Rs.5,000/- towards pain and suffering. In addition to that amount, a sum of Rs.20,000/- was awarded towards medical expenses. The High Court has further awarded Rs.40,000/- towards medical expenses during the pendency of the appeal. Further, it has awarded interest at the rate of 8% p.a. on the enhanced compensation. Being unsatisfied with the enhanced compensation by the High Court, the appellant filed this appeal.

We further award an amount of Rs.20,000/- towards special diet, Rs.40,000/- towards attendant expenses during the period of treatment and Rs.20,000/- towards transportation.

Since, the claim of the appellant has been pending for several years before the courts, we are of the view to award a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards costs incurred during pendency of the appeal.

In the result, the appellant shall be entitled to the compensation figured out in the following table under different heads:

Thus, the total compensation payable to the appellant by the respondent Insurance Company will be Rs.17,60,500/- as per amount awarded against different heads mentioned above in the table with interest @ 9% p.a. on the compensation awarded by this Court from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of payment.

22. Since the claim petition has been pending in the courts for the last 6 years, we direct the Insurance Company to either pay the compensation awarded in this appeal by way of demand draft or deposit the same before the concerned MACT within four weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this Judgment and submit the compliance report for the perusal of this Court.

The appeal is allowed in the above said terms.
Daljit Kaur & Ors vs Muktar Steels Pvt Ltd & Ors

4. The broad essential facts giving rise to the appeal are that the first respondent instituted OS No. 2261 of 1988 in the Court of IVth Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad for declaration to the effect that the agreements and arrangements between the parties are in the nature of “Industrial Licence” and not “Leave and Licence” in respect of the suit premises situate in private industrial estate Sanathnagar, Hyderabad and also for permanent injunction. The suit was originally filed against the defendant No. 1, the Managing Partner of the firm but after his death defendant Nos. 2 to 6 were brought on record.

6. Suffice it to state that during the pendency of the suit at the intervention of the elders both the parties, as alleged, entered into a compromise. As noted by the trial court as well as by the appellate court, the parties entered into a settlement which were reflectible from Exts. A-8, A-9 and A-14. I.A. No. 966 of 2001 was filed before the learned trial Judge for recording the compromise and passing a decree in terms of the settlement. It was urged before the trial court that as the defendant had disputed the compromise, it was imperative to conduct an enquiry. For the said purpose I.A. No. 490 of 2002 was filed by the plaintiff. The said application was resisted by the defendant on many a ground. The learned trial Judge rejected the said application solely on the base that the plaintiff had not carried out the amendments in the plaint by complying with the order passed in I.A. No. 1015 of 1998 for amendment and hence, his claim for getting an enquiry done was not maintainable.

19. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we do not find any merit in this appeal and, accordingly, the same stands dismissed without any order as to costs.

November 19, 2013.
B. Chandrika vs Santhosh & Ors

2. The appellant herein is the second accused in CC 1548/2011 pending on file of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Cherthalay, which was initiated by the Magistrate on a protest complaint filed by the first respondent herein for the offences punishable under Section 420 read with Section 34 IPC. Summons were issued to accused persons by the learned Magistrate vide order dated 22.11.2011. That order was challenged in Revision before the High Court of Kerala on the ground that the Magistrate was not justified in initiating proceedings after a refer report was submitted by the Police, after due enquiry. The High Court, however, dismissed the Revision Petition vide order dated 23rd November, 2012 stating that even if a refer report is filed by the police after conducting investigation, the Magistrate has the power to entertain a protest complaint and to issue summons to the accused and proceed in accordance with law. Aggrieved by the same, this appeal has been preferred.

3. This appeal has been preferred by the second accused, a divorced wife of the first accused. The first respondent herein initially filed a complaint against accused nos.1 and 2 before the Police Station Mohamma which was registered as Crime No.302/2010. The operative portion of the complaint is as follows :-

5. On the basis of the above-mentioned report, the police referred the case as not proved. Reference report was submitted to the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Cherthalay for appropriate action. Later, the respondent/claimant filed a protest complaint before the above-mentioned Court for cancellation of the reference report and for taking cognizance of the case, on which, as already stated, the Magistrate passed an order dated 22.11.2011, which reads as follows :-

12. The appeal is allowed, as above.
Ashok Kumar Aggarwal vs Union Of India And Ors

2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are that:

C. An affidavit was filed by respondent No. 5 on 5.4.2002, being investigating officer, wherein it had been stated that the investigation was complete and that no further investigation was required to be done and a final report Part-1 (FR-1) was submitted by him on 11.1.2002 to the Superintendent of Police (in short `SP’).

10. In view of the above, law on the issue can be summarised that in order to initiate prosecution for perjury, the court must prima facie reach a conclusion after holding preliminary inquiry that there has been a deliberate and conscious effort to misguide the court and interfere in the administration of justice. More so, it has to be seen whether such a prosecution is necessary in the interest of justice.

The case is required to be decided in light of the aforesaid settled legal proposition.

15. Thus, we do not find any cogent reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order. The appeal lacks merit and, is accordingly dismissed.
C.B.I vs Ashok Kumar Aggarwal & Anr

2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are that:

M. The reply to the Letter Rogatory dated 18.7.2001 was received by the CBI on 30.7.2001 and the said reply was placed before the court. The CBI requested the court that it should be permitted to retain the same for further investigation which was allowed. The learned Special Judge allowed the application of respondent no.2 seeking pardon and made him an approver vide order dated 7.9.2001.

N. Aggrieved, respondent no.1 filed a writ petition challenging the said order dated 7.9.2001 which was subsequently converted into a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. i.e. Crl. Misc. (Main) No. 3741 of 2001. During the pendency thereof, charge sheet was filed on 28.6.2002 and the learned Special Judge took cognizance of the case vide order dated 8.7.2002. The Special Judge proceeded further and framed the charges vide order dated 17.12.2005. In the meanwhile, the prosecution obtained sanction for prosecution of respondent no.1, and the same was challenged by the respondent no.1 by preferring Writ Petition No. 1401/2005.

28. In view of the above, we do not find any cogent reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order. The appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. Interim order passed earlier stands vacated.

Before parting with the case, we would clarify that no observation made by us in this judgment, on factual issues should be taken as final by the court concerned. The court shall proceed in accordance with law.
State Bank Of India vs Gracure Pharmaceuticals Ltd

3. Suit No.288/03/04 of 2003 was also filed by the respondent on 21.05.2003 claiming damages of Rs.3,09,000/- with cost and pendente lite and future interest @ 18% per annum against bank and its officers for withdrawing credit facility on 23.03.2002. Notice was issued to the bank and its officers by the District Court, Delhi.

4. The bank and its officers then filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC in Suit No.288/03/04 of 2003 before the District Court, Delhi for rejection of the plaint in the suit for damages on the ground that the same is barred by the provisions of Order 2 Rule 2 CPC. The District Court elaborately heard the matter and after perusing the plaints, averments in both the suits as well as the reliefs sought for, came to the conclusion that the cause of action in both the suits was same and the relief sought for in Suit No.288/03/04 of 2003 could have been claimed by the plaintiff in the Suit No.1145 of 2003 filed before the Delhi High Court. The application under Order 7 Rule 11 was, therefore, allowed, holding that the latter suit was barred under Order 2 Rule 2, CPC and plaint was accordingly rejected.

5. The respondent, aggrieved by the said order, filed RFA No.490 of 2006 before the Delhi High Court. The High Court took the view that the earlier suit No.1145 of 2003 was founded on cause of action pertaining to the contract between the parties and the second Suit No.288/03/04 of 2003 was on entirely different footing, being the malicious action of the officers of the bank to withdraw the credit facility because of their animus emanating from the action of the respondent to lodge a complaint before the Ombudsman Banking. Holding so, the appeal was allowed and the order dated 10.05.2006 of the District Court was set aside. Challenging the above-mentioned order these appeals have been filed by the State Bank of India.

16. We are, therefore, of the view that the High Court has committed an error in reversing the order dated 10.05.2005, passed by the District Court, allowing the application under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC. The appeals are accordingly allowed and the judgment of the High Court is set aside. However, there will be no order as to costs.
Saroj vs Sunder Singh & Ors

2. The brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are as follows:

3. The second respondent in her written statement stated that the appellant and two others were her minor daughters. She is the wife of Khilluram and the equal shares of the disputed land are registered in the name of the appellant and two daughters. She had sold the entire disputed land including the shares of the daughters vide sale deed dated 1st December, 1988 which was registered on 9th December, 1988. The consideration amount received out of the said sale was spent to fulfill the requirements of the daughters- i.e. appellant and proforma respondent Nos.4 and 5 herein.

4. In a separate written statement the first respondent accepted that the disputed land situated in village Ujjaili, Tehsil-Kot Kasim is the ancestral property of Khilluram. After the death of Khilluram the said suit land was devolved on appellant, two other sisters and the second respondent jointly in equal shares. The appellant and the two other daughters were minor and their mother i.e. second respondent herein was the natural guardian. The agricultural work was done jointly by the appellant, two other daughters and the second respondent. It is stated that the suit land was sold for proper maintenance of the minor daughters.

5. On behalf of the plaintiffs-appellant herein and two other sisters, Saroj (PW-1), Chandra Kanat (PW-2) and Pop Singh (PW-3) were examined. They placed on record the documents duly exhibited as Exh.1 to

14. In view of the finding recorded above, we set aside the judgments and orders passed by the trial court, First Appellate Court and Second Appellate Court. Accordingly, the suit stands decreed in favour of the appellant and proforma respondent Nos.4 and 5. The appeal is allowed with no costs.
Chironjilal Sharma Huf vs Union Of India & Ors

2. The brief facts necessary for consideration of the issue raised in the appeal are these: In the search conducted in the house of the appellant on 31.1.1990, a cash amount of Rs. 2,35,000/- was recovered. On 31.5.1990, an order under Section 132(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) came to be passed. The Assessing Officer calculated the tax liability and the cash seized in the search from the appellant's house was appropriated. However, the order of the Assessing Officer was finally set-aside by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short “the Tribunal”) on 20.2.2004. The revenue accepted the order of the Tribunal. Consequently, the appellant has been refunded the amount of Rs. 2,35,000/- along with interest from 4.3.1994 (date of last of the regular assessments by the Assessing Officer) until the date of refund.

8. We, accordingly, allow the appeal and set-aside the impugned order and hold that the appellant is entitled to the simple interest at the rate of fifteen percent per annum under Section 132B(4)(b) of the Act from 1.12.1990 to 4.3.1994.

9. The revenue shall calculate the interest payable to the assessee as above and pay the same to the appellant (assessee) within two months from today. No costs.

NOVEMBER 26, 2013.
State Of Rajasthan vs Shambhu Kewat & Anr

2. Respondents herein were charge-sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 323, 325, 427 read with Section 34 IPC. They were tried before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track No. 1, Kota, Rajasthan. From the side of the prosecution, PWs 1 to 5 were examined and Exh. P1- P12 were produced. From the side of defence, second accused was examined as DW1. The Sessions Court, after hearing the parties and considering the oral and documentary evidence, found the accused persons guilty of the offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC, but acquitted them of the rest of the charges, vide its order dated 9.7.2009. Later, the accused persons were heard on sentence, and they stated that they are not habitual criminals and are aged 26 and 28 years, respectively. Further, it was pointed out that they are poor labourers married and have children. Further, it was also pointed out that the injuries were caused due to sudden provocation, and were not pre-meditated. After hearing the accused and the prosecution, the trial Court, on sentence, passed the following order:

Warrant of sentence be prepared. Recovered property in the case, iron road and strip of iron like sword be destroyed after expiry of limitation of appeal as per directions. Copy of the judgment be supplied to the accused free of cost.”

5. The High Court felt that since the parties had entered into a compromise and resolved their disputes and differences, it would be in the interest of justice to allow the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the accused persons were acquitted of the offence under Sections 307 read with 34 IPC. Aggrieved by the same, this appeal has been preferred.

16. We are, therefore, inclined to allow this appeal and set aside the judgment of the High Court. The High Court was carried away by the settlement and has not examined the matter on merits, hence, we are inclined to direct the High Court to take back the appeal to its file and decide the appeal on merits. Let the High Court dispose of the appeal within six months. Ordered accordingly.
M/S Paragon Rubber Industries vs M/S Pragati Rubber Mills & Ors

3. Since these are cross appeals, the parties shall be referred to as plaintiff and defendant. The facts at the centre of this controversy are as follows:

4. On 19th March, 2001, the Plaintiff filed a suit being O.S. No. 2 of 2001 at District Courts in Kottayam, Kerala against the defendants, claiming relief under the Copyright Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as “1957 Act”) and the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the “1958 Act”). The suit is pending in the trial court. The defendant filed I.A. No. 322 of 2004, under order VII Rule XI CPC, with a prayer for rejection of plaint for want of territorial jurisdiction. The trial court dismissed the application on 22nd March, 2004, with the observations that the issue of jurisdiction will be decided at the final stage of the suit. The defendant filed CRP No.363 of 2004 in the High Court against the aforesaid order. The High Court by order dated 16th June, 2004, allowed the civil revision and directed the trial court to determine the issue of territorial jurisdiction afresh.

23. In view of the observations made above, both the appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs.

November 29, 2013.

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).22280/2011 M/S PARAGON RUBBER INDUSTRIES Petitioner(s) VERSUS M/S PRAGATI RUBBER MILLS & ORS. Respondent(s) WITH Civil Appeal No.10746/2013 @ SLP(C) NO. 33453 of 2011 Date: 29/11/2013 These matters were called on for pronouncement of Judgment today.

For Petitioner(s) Mr. A. Raghunath,Adv.

Mr. Atul Jha, Adv.

Ms. Divya Balasundaram, Adv.

Mr. Sandeep Jha, Adv.

Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Sinha For Respondent(s) Mr. Atul Jha, Adv.

Ms. Divya Balasundaram, Adv.

Mr. Sandeep Jha, Adv.

Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Sinha,Adv.

For the reasons recorded in the signed Reportable Judgment, both the Appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs.

(Signed Reportable Judgment is placed on the file)