L-NLProc/TathyaNyaya-and-FactLegalLlama-NyayaScrape-Datasets huggingface dataset:
Union Of India And Another vs Mahajabeen Akhtar

What is missed is that respondent was asking for the revised pay scale at par with the Research Assistants in other offices under the Education Department on the basis of similarity in the nature of discharging of duties etc. which was not controverted by the petitioner and to which she was entitled in the absence of any denial in this regard. Therefore, it cant be said the Tribunal has gone wrong in directing petitioner to consider this respondent for grant of pay scale of Rs.6500- 10500 from 1.1.1996 on the analogy of the scale granted to Research Assistant in other Offices in the Education Department, in view of the similarity in qualifications functions and responsibilities of the post of Research Assistant in the Bureau on one hand and in the CHD, CSTT, CIIL on the other. The Tribunal order is accordingly affirmed and petition is disposed of.

Note 1 : Specific requirement will be indicated at the time of recruitment.

26. Our attention has been drawn to the findings of the Tribunal that the incumbents to the post of Research Assistants in the Bureau and Institutions like Central Hindu Directorate and Central Institution of Indian Languages etc. are similarly qualified and they have been performing similar functions. There was no factual foundation for arriving at the same finding. Consequently, the said conclusion was wrongly drawn by the Tribunal. Furthermore, no formula having mathematical exactitude can be pressed into service in a situation of this nature. The Tribunal and consequently the High Court, in our opinion, therefore, was not correct in arriving at the said decision.

28. We, therefore, although agree with the submissions of learned Additional Solicitor General, in the facts and circumstances of this case, decline to grant any relief in favour of the appellant. The appeal is dismissed in view of our observations aforementioned. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.
Union Of India & Ors vs State Of U.P. & Ors

2. The Union of India and two others filed a writ petition before the High Court of Allahabad challenging the orders of recovery dated 1.7.1999 and 20.12.1999 issued by the Executive Engineer, Jal Sansthan, Khusru Bagh, Allahabad on account of service charges on Railway properties situated at Allahabad for the period from October, 1994 to March, 1999. The appellants also challenged the recovery certificate issued by the Tahasildar, Sadar, Allahabad for recovery of a sum of Rs.26,23,360/- from the appellant No.2 i.e. the Divisional Railway Manager, Northern Railway, Allahabad. It was alleged by the Jal Sansthan that the appellants were liable to pay the sewerage charges for 3125 seats at the rates notified under Allahabad Jal Sansthan Notification published in U.P. Gazette dated 19.11.1994. The plea of the appellants was that they were holding the property of the Central Government for which the service charges were not payable under Article 285 of the Constitution of India as such charges were in the nature of a tax. It was submitted that in view of the policy taken by the Ministry of Railways, Government of India such charges cannot be recovered as this was totally exempted but the respondent Jal Sansthan did not heed to it and they moved the Tahasildar, Sadar, Allahabad for effecting recovery. Therefore, the appellants were constrained to file the present writ petition before the High Court of Allahabad.

3. The writ petition was contested by the respondents and they filed their reply and pointed out that in view of various circulars of the Ministry of Railways, the appellants have been paying the service charges to the Jal Sansthan and in that connection it was pointed out that other Central Government Offices situated in Allahabad i.e. Telephone Department; Post Offices; Accountant General Office; Central Excise Department; Income Tax Offices were all making regular payment of service charge and sewerage charge to the Jal Sansthan, Allahabad. It was also pointed out that earlier the demand of service charges was being paid by the Railway Administration to the Allahabad Nagar Mahapalika but with the establishment of Allahabad Jal Sansthan under the U.P. Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1975 (herein after to be referred to as the Act) the aforesaid charges were being levied and realized by the Allahabad Jal Sansthan.

24. As a result of our above discussion, we do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. vs State Of U.P. And Ors.

2. The Union of India and two others filed a writ petition before the High Court of Allahabad challenging the orders of recovery dated 1.7.1999 and 20.12.1999 issued by the Executive Engineer, Jal Sansthan, Khusru Bagh, Allahabad on account of service charges on Railway properties situated at Allahabad for the period from October, 1994 to March, 1999. The appellants also challenged the recovery certificate issued by the Tahasildar, Sadar, Allahabad for recovery of a sum of Rs.26,23,360/- from the appellant No.2 i.e. the Divisional Railway Manager, Northern Railway, Allahabad. It was alleged by the Jal Sansthan that the appellants were liable to pay the sewerage charges for 3125 seats at the rates notified under Allahabad Jal Sansthan Notification published in U.P. Gazette dated 19.11.1994. The plea of the appellants was that they were holding the property of the Central Government for which the service charges were not payable under Article 285 of the Constitution of India as such charges were in the nature of a tax. It was submitted that in view of the policy taken by the Ministry of Railways, Government of India such charges cannot be recovered as this was totally exempted but the respondent - Jal Sansthan did not heed to it and they moved the Tahasildar, Sadar, Allahabad for effecting recovery. Therefore, the appellants were constrained to file the present writ petition before the High Court of Allahabad.

3. The writ petition was contested by the respondents and they filed their reply and pointed out that in view of various circulars of the Ministry of Railways, the appellants have been paying the service charges to the Jal Sansthan and in that connection it was pointed out that other Central Government Offices situated in Allahabad i.e. Telephone Department; Post Offices; Accountant General Office; Central Excise Department; Income Tax Offices were all making regular payment of service charge and sewerage charge to the Jal Sansthan, Allahabad. It was also pointed out that earlier the demand of service charges was being paid by the Railway Administration to the Allahabad Nagar Mahapalika but with the establishment of Allahabad Jal Sansthan under the U.P. Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1975 (herein after to be referred to as 'the Act') the aforesaid charges were being levied and realized by the Allahabad Jal Sansthan.

24. As a result of our above discussion, we do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
Ramesh Chand Alias Ramesh Chander vs Uganti Devi (D) Th. Lr'S & Anr

JUDGMENT IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO...5133 OF 2007 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 2871 of 2007) RAMESH CHAND @ RAMESH CHANDER ..... APPELLANT (S) VERSUS UGANTI DEVI (D) TH. LR'S & ANR. ....RESPONDENT (S) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5134 OF 2007 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 2961 of 2007) O R D E R

4. So far as Civil Revision case being Civil Revision Petition No. 528 of 1993 is concerned, we find that the High Court had dismissed the same on the ground that since the said Revision case is pending for the last 13 years and the appellant was enjoying interim orders granted by the High Court and also considering the fact that 3 the Revision Case was dismissed earlier for default but restored and as no steps were taken to bring on record the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased Respondent No. 1, Revision case must be dismissed.

6. Before parting with this order, we may say that it would be open for the High Court to consider at the time of final disposal of the Civil Revision Petition whether the entire Civil Revision case was abated on the death of Respondent No. 1 as heirs and legal representatives of the said deceased have not been brought on record.

7. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the Civil Revision Petition Nos. 4 528 and 345 of 1993 are restored to its original file and the High Court shall now decide the same within the time specified hereinabove.

8. The appeals are allowed to the extent indicated above. There will be no order as to costs.

................................, J (TARUN CHATTERJEE) ...................................J (DALVEER BHANDARI) New Delhi November 2, 2007
Lucknow Development Authority vs Krishna Gopal Lahoti And Ors

4. The factual background in a nutshell is as follows:

11. Stand of the respondents before the High Court was that there was no illegality in the Award passed by the reference court. It was submitted that the land was situated near densely populated area having great potential value and the appellate authority is selling the same land at the rate of Rs.300/- per sq. ft. The reference court on the basis of oral and documentary evidence has awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.6/- per sq. ft. along with other benefits as provided under the Act. The High Court found that the claimants had filed number of sale deeds of varying rates ranging between Rs.10/- per sq. ft. to Rs.5/- per sq. ft. but the sale deed relating to the plot No.166 situated at Mahibullahpur was relied upon by the Tribunal and the reasons for enhancing the compensation were assigned which according to the High Court did not call for any interference. The High Court did not find any substance in the plea of the appellant that the sale deed (Ex.C-38) was unduly relied upon by the Tribunal. It was pointed out that the sale deed is related to a very small piece of land as against the large area of more than 10 bighas involved in the present case. The High Court referred to certain decisions of this Court to hold that while determining the market value of the land, the potentiality of the land is a very material consideration and several factors like location of the land, its surroundings, available facilities thereon in the vicinity, nature of the land have to be taken into account. The High Court also found that there was no similarity between the land which was the subject matter of dispute in land acquisition case No.204 of 1992 where the rate fixed was Rs.1.85 per sq. ft.

18. It can be broadly stated that the element of speculation is reduced to minimum if the underlying principles of fixation of market value with reference to comparable sales are made:

25. Keeping in view the general principles and the factual scenario as evident from the materials brought on record, we sustain the market value fixed (i.e. Rs.8/- sq.ft.) but instead of 25% development charges one-third has to be deducted. The entitlements shall be worked out on that basis.

26. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent with no order as to costs.
Veena Kumari Tandon vs Neelam Bhalla And Others

3. Respondent No.17 is a Group Housing Cooperative Society. Contesting parties hereto are its members. Some of the members of the said Group Housing Cooperative Society are members of the same family. They were, however, admitted to the membership of the Society without any reservation whatsoever.

4. The dispute which arose amongst the members of the Society started with preparation of voter list. A provisional list of voters was published by the Managing Committee of the Society on 22nd January, 2004 showing the names of 35 members. However, a resolution was adopted by the Managing Committee to prepare a final list of members eligible to vote on the purported basis of bye-laws 8(a), 9(a) and 9(b) of the Bye Laws of the society meaning thereby that member holding more than one flat or membership in the name of his/her family members will be eligible to one vote only. On the said basis a final list of members was published. Objections thereto were submitted. Respondent No. 1 besides other members filed nomination for contesting the election. The same was rejected whereagainst appeals were preferred under Section 152(A) of 1960 Act by respondent Nos. 1, 3 to 5, and 7 to 11 herein. The said appeals were dismissed by the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies H/West Division, Mumbai on 17th March, 2004.

5. A writ petition was filed thereagainst. Some interim orders were passed by the High Court directing the votes of the members, whose names had been excluded in the final voter list on the ground that they are members of the same family, to be kept in a separate sealed cover. Indisputably in the final voters list which was prepared showing only one member of the family to be a voter, despite the fact that more than one member of the same family had been allotted more than one flat.

15. We, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment of the High Court. This appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs. Counsel's fee assessed at Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only).
Savitri Goenka vs Kusum Lata Damant And Ors

2. Though many points were urged in respect of the appeal, we find that the impugned order of the High Court cannot be maintained on one ground. Though it had issued notice to the appellant, the matter was disposed of without hearing the appellant. It appears that respondent no.1 had filed the bail application, that is, Criminal Misc. Petition No.2945/2004 on 10.12.2004. The court directed service on the appellant. There is no dispute that there was no service of notice on the appellant. According to the appellant, on learning about the proceedings, Criminal Misc. Application No.4653/05 was filed in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.2945/04. The High Court was pleased to issue notice on 14.7.2005 on the said application and the High Court directed the accused to implead the appellant. Learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the bail application of the accused, respondent No.1 on the ground that relief had already been obtained by her from the High Court. On 22.9.2005, without service on the appellant, the High Court converted the application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'Cr.P.C.'), to one under Section 438 Cr.P.C. and granted interim protection.

5. In view of the aforesaid position, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded for fresh consideration. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. To avoid unnecessary delay let the parties appear without further notice on 23rd November, 2007, before learned Single Judge. If any party does not appear on that day, needless to say learned Single Judge shall deal with the matter in accordance with law. Learned Chief Justice of the High Court is requested to direct listing of the matter before learned Single Judge according to the roaster.

6. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.
Y.N. Gangadhara Setty & Ors vs Jaya Prakash Reddy, Md, Karnataka ...

2. Brief facts which are relevant to dispose of this contempt application are recapitulated as under:-

5. On 14.10.1969, the Land Acquisition Officer wrote to the State Government informing that the disputed land has been reconveyed in the name of YS Setty & Sons and the final order was awaited from the State Government.

9. The erstwhile partners and successors-in-interest of the applicants YS Setty & Sons filed a writ petition bearing Writ Petition No.4276 of 1995 before the High Court seeking directions to the contemnor herein to comply with the order dated 30.8.1972 passed by this court and to direct the State Government to comply with the government order dated 15.9.1967.

10. The applicants herein filed suit OS No.6969/1999 before the City Civil Court at Bangalore for reconveyance of the scheduled/disputed property. The court granted interim injunction in favour of plaintiff on 15.2.2000.

federation herein showed its inability to give that portion, therefore, the applicants herein YS Setty & Sons had agreed to take 2 acres 5 guntas of land, as per Map shown in Schedule B which the contemnor agreed to give to the applicants.

24. We further direct that the cost of the reconstruction of the existing buildings shall be valued by an independent Government approved valuer within two weeks from today. The re-construction cost so fixed shall be deposited within a week from the report of the valuer.

25. The respondent-federation will be entitled to demolish the buildings within 8 weeks from the date of deposit and shall hand over vacant possession of the area of 2 acres 5 guntas as per Schedule B. The original re- conveyance deed shall be rectified within four weeks of handing over vacant, peaceful and physical possession by the respondent-federation.

26. In case there is non-compliance of the orders of this Court, the court will take very serious view of the matter and pass appropriate orders.

27. The contempt petition is disposed of accordingly.
Management Of Indian Bank And Anr vs G. Ramachandran And Ors

Respondents have joined the service of the appellant-Bank on diverse dates. They, indisputably, have served the Bank for more than 10 years. They opted for the Pension Regulation as and when the same was framed and sought for voluntary retirement from services in 2001. The said offer of retirement has been accepted.

The representation of the respondents that their entire period of service, including the period of leave availed by them on loss of pay, should be taken into consideration for the purpose of computing the pensionary benefits, having been rejected by the Bank by its order dated 16.8.2001 and 17.8.2001, several writ applications came to be filed by the respondents. The High Court by an order dated 23.9.2002 directed the appellant-Bank to give a personal hearing to them. The said order was complied with. However, by an order dated 11.10.2002 passed by the Bank, the representations of the respondents were rejected.

We, therefore, are of the opinion that the impugned judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained and it is set aside accordingly. The appeal is allowed. However, in the facts and circumstances of this case, there shall be no orders as to costs.
Gurpreet Kaur @ Rinky vs Vipin Kumar Gupta

JUDGMENT O R D E R TRANSFER PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.77 OF 2007 K. G. Balakrishnan, CJI, The petitioner claims that the respondent was her mother's counsel in a number of matrimonial and maintenance cases filed by her mother against her father. She alleges that she is in her twenties and engaged to one Parminder Singh. She claims that the respondent had advised the petitioner to file a petition under section 18 of the Hindu Adoption & Maintenance Act against her father, seeking the expenses of her forthcoming marriage and in that behalf, took signatures from her on several blank papers. Thereafter, respondent having evil designs on her started pressurizing her to break off her engagement and marry him, though he was 48 years of age and already married having two children. The petitioner and her mother warned the respondent that he should not harbour such feelings. The respondent became furious and threatened the petitioner that he would not allow her to live in peace.

2. According to her, with a view to spoil her marriage prospects, the respondent filed a frivolous civil suit against the petitioner, her brothers and other relatives; that in furtherance of his evil designs, he also forged a letter dated 19.12.2006 purporting to have been authored by the petitioner addressed to his friends at Mumbai, making defamatory imputations against him, and on that basis filed a complaint before the Metropolitan Magistrate (49th Court), Mumbai under section 200 Cr.P.C. in January, 2007, praying that the petitioner be summoned, tried and penalized for the offence of defamation. The learned Magistrate has issued summons to the petitioner in the said case. The petitioner has filed this petition for transfer of the said criminal proceedings bearing CC No.6/SS/2007 from the Court of the Special Metropolitan Magistrate, 47th Court, Vikhroli, Mumbai to any court in Delhi. The petitioner contends that though the respondent resides in Delhi, he has filed the complaint in Mumbai to put her to hardship, both financially and otherwise as she will be required to travel all the way to Mumbai and appear in the case on several hearings; that the respondent may resort to third degree methods in Mumbai; and that he may harass her by seeking unnecessary adjournments.

5. We are satisfied that petitioner will be put to considerable hardship if she is required to contest the matter in Mumbai. On the facts and circumstances, the case deserves to be transferred to Delhi, as requested by the petitioner.

6. We accordingly allow this petition and direct transfer of CC No.6/SS/2007, titled Vipin Kumar Gupta vs. Gurpreet Kaur from the Court of the Special Metropolitan Magistrate (47th Court), Vikhoroli, Mumbai to the court of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi, who shall either dispose of the case himself or assign it to any other Magistrate in Delhi.
Gali Venkataiah vs State Of Andhra Pradesh

3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

4. Challenging correctness of the judgment rendered by the trial court an appeal was preferred before the High Court. The primary stand was that the witnesses PWs 1 to 3 were the wife and the sons of the deceased and were, therefore, interested witnesses. Further the other witnesses who were independent did not support the prosecution version. In any event it was submitted that an offence under Section 302 IPC is not made out.

17. The above position is highlighted in Sandhya Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra,(2006) 4 SCC 653.

18. Considering the factual background we are of the view that the appropriate conviction would be in terms of Section 304 Part I IPC, custodial sentence of ten years would meet the ends of justice. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.