L-NLProc/TathyaNyaya-and-FactLegalLlama-NyayaScrape-Datasets huggingface dataset:
Dayanand Rayu Mandrekar vs Chandrakant Uttam Chodankar & Ors

JUDGMENT O R D E R CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3578 OF 2005 With Civil Appeal No. 3579/2005 The appellants, in these two appeals, challenge the judgment in the Election Petition nos. 1 and 2 of 2002. In both these cases a common questions of law had arisen and, therefore, we heard the matter together and are disposing these appeals by way of a common order. The appellant in C.A. No. 3578/05 was elected to the Legislative Assembly of State of Goa from Siolim constitutency in the election held on 30.5.2002, whereas the appellant in C.A. No. 3579/05 was elected from Vasco-da-gama Assembly constitutency of the State Legislature. The election petitions were preferred by two unsuccessful candidates in the elections alleging that these two appellants were holding 'office of profit' at the time when they contested the elections and, therefore, they were ineligible to be elected to the legislature. At the time of filing their nominations, the appellant in C.A. No. 3578/05 was the Chairman of the Goa Khadi and Village Industries Board of the State of Goa, whereas the appellant in C.A. No. 3579/05 was the Chairman of the Goa State Scheduled Castes and Other Backward Classes Finance & Development Corporation Ltd. of the State of Goa. The appellants in these two cases contended before the High Court that they were not holding an 'office of profit' and were not receiving any salary or allowances for the said post they held and by virtue of the provision contained in the Goa, Daman and Diu Members of Legislative Assembly [Removal of Disqualifications] Act, 1982 (for short 'the 1982 Act'), the disqualification, if any, was removed especially by clause (9) of the Schedule. The pleas set-up by the appellants were rejected and the High Court held that these appellants were holding the 'office of profit' and that they were not entitled to contest the election as they were disqualified and the election petitions were allowed and elections of appellants were set aside.

We have examined the claim of the appellants in the light of the 1982 Act and hold that the appellants are not entitled to get the protection of the Act. Therefore, whether this Act was adopted by the State Assembly of Goa or not, need not be considered at this stage and we leave open the question to be considered in other appropriate cases.

We find no merit in these appeals and the appeals are dismissed accordingly.
Ashok Kumar & Ors vs State Of Haryana & Anr

Indisputably, the said interim order was extended from time to time, as would be noticed hereinafter. By an order dated 24.09.1997 while adjourning the suit to 29.11.1997, the order of stay dated 30.08.1997 was extended. On 29.11.1997, the following order was passed :

[Emphasis supplied] Yet again by an order dated 09.01.1998, the stay order was extended till 23.03.1998. Similar order was passed on 23.03.1998. The matter was, however, placed on 28.07.1998 on the ground that the Presiding Officer was to remain on leave on 29.07.1998. The matter was adjourned to 09.09.1998. However, the order of injunction was not extended.

After some adjournments, the suit was dismissed for default on 19.08.2000.

We, therefore, are of the opinion that the judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained, which is set aside accordingly. The appeal is allowed. In the facts and circumstances, there shall, however, be no order as to costs.
M/S. Agri Gold Exims Ltd vs M/S. Sri Lakshmi Knits & Wovens & Ors

Disputes and differences arose between the parties. However, the person who was managing the affairs of the respondents firms passed away. His daughter thereafter took over the business of the firms. By a letter dated 03.08.2003, it was stated:

Before receipt of the said payments, however, the appellant filed a suit in the District Court at Vijaywada for a decree for a sum of Rs. 36,14,887/-, the cause of action wherefor was stated as under:

Appellant evidently has taken before us an inconsistent stand. If he was satisfied with the payment of the said demand drafts, he need not pursue the suit. It could have said so explicitly before the High Court. It cannot, therefore, be permitted to approbate and reprobate.

For the reasons aforementioned, there is no merit in this appeal which is dismissed accordingly with costs. Counsel's fee assessed at Rs. 25,000/-.
Rosali V vs Taico Bank And Ors

M/s. Nellai Small Match Producers Service Industrial Co-op. Society Ltd. filed a suit against N. Dharmaraj, Respondent No. 2 herein in the Court of Principal Subordiante Judge in the State of Tamil Nadu for realization of some amount owing and due to it. The said suit was decreed. The said decree was transferred for execution to the Court of City Civil Judge, Bangalore. The matter ultimately was transferred to the Court of the 17th Additional City Civil Judge, Banaglore.

A proclamation of sale of immovable property bearing No. 1138/8, II Main Road, Vijaynagar, Bangalore was issued on 21.10.1988 whereupon the auction sale was held. In the said auction sale Smt. Mahadevi S. Havannavar became the highest bidder having given a bid for a sum of Rs. 3,25,000/-. The said deal was accepted by the learned Executing Court on 26.10.1988. It is stated that the said sale was conducted at about 4.00 p.m. on the said date and keeping in view of the fact that the banks at that time were closed, the court directed the auction purchaser to deposit the amount by the next day in the following terms:

Smt. Leelavathi, Respondent No. 3 herein, in the meanwhile, had instituted a suit in the Court of Addl. City Civil Judge Bangalore being O.S. No. 2493 of 1981 on 17.08.1981 for specific performance of contract against Respondent No. 2 in respect of the self-same property wherefor a sum of Rs. 1,05,000/- said to have been paid by way of advance. The said suit was decreed by the said Civil Judge by a judgment and order dated 20.04.1985. An appeal was preferred thereagainst before the High Court which was dismissed by an order dated 6/8.03.1996.

After the auction sale was confirmed, Respondent No. 3 appears to have filed an application purported to be under Order XXI Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Code). It is not in dispute that by an order dated 11.11.1988 as no objection was filed and the entire amount had been deposited, the sale was confirmed and the sale certificate was directed to be issued to the auction purchaser. Sale certificate on a stamp paper, which had been furnished in the meanwhile, was issued by the Court on 17.11.1988.

A revision application was filed by the appellant herein before the High Court which by reason of the impugned judgment has been dismissed. It appears that the vendor of the appellant had also filed a revision application and the same was also disposed of by reason of the said judgment.

We, therefore, are clearly of the opinion that the High Court was not correct in holding that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the provisions of Order XXI Rule 84 had not been complied with.
Mohinder Singh vs State Of Punjab & Ors

However, the mortgagors allegedly received the said sum of Rs. 425/- from the mortgagees wherefor a receipt was allegedly granted on 20.02.1979. Indisputably, an application for redemption of mortgage was filed by the heirs and legal representatives of said Telu Ram before the Collector of the District on 17.06.1991.

A civil suit was filed by Harjap Singh and others questioning the said order of the Collector dated 28.04.1992. A decree was passed but an appeal thereagainst was filed by the heirs and legal representatives of Telu Ram before the District Judge, Ropar which was allowed by an order dated 03.03.1997. A second appeal preferred by the said Harjap Singh and others has been dismissed by the High Court.

Some of the lands in the mean time were sold by the heirs and legal representatives of Telu Ram in favour of Bhagat Singh and others who filed an application before the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Anandpur Sahib, District Ropar for possession of the lands in terms of the order of the Collector dated 28.04.1992. Objections filed by the appellant in the said proceedings were rejected. However, an appeal was preferred thereagainst by the appellant which by reason of a judgment and order dated 11.06.2002 was allowed. A second appeal preferred by the respondents herein before the Financial Commissioner Revenue, as indicated hereinbefore, was accepted.

It has also not been disputed that the matter had come up for consideration before this Court on an earlier occasion from a judgment and order passed by the High Court in the second appeal and the said special leave petition was dismissed. The direction for redemption of mortgage issued by the Collector, therefore, attained finality.

Keeping in view the factual background obtaining in this case, we have no hesitation to hold that the appellant herein had raised unnecessary objections in execution of the order of redemption passed by the Collector. Even otherwise, the contention of the appellant is evidently barred by the principles of constructive res judicata. In any event, the said purported receipt having not been proved in accordance with law, no reliance can be placed thereupon.

For the reasons aforementioned, there is no merit in his appeal which is dismissed accordingly with costs. Counsel's fee assessed at Rs. 25,000/-.
Government Of A.P. And Ors vs V. Appala Swamy

4. Respondent herein was working as a Principal in various colleges, situated in the State of Andhra Pradesh. On or about 18.7.1990, several charges of misconduct were framed against him. A departmental proceedings was initiated. In the said departmental proceedings, the Inquiry Officer submitted his report on 8.1.1992. However, before any action could be taken pursuant to and in furtherance of the said report, the respondent retired on 30.6.1992.

5. A proceeding was initiated against the respondent upon service of a notice to show cause as to why 50% of the provisional pension fixed in his favour in terms of an interim orer dated 18.3.1993 in O.A. No. 1992/1993 passed by the Director of Intermediate Education, Hyderabad, or part thereof should not be withheld. Respondent filed his reply to the said show cause notice on 20th November, 1997. During the pendency of the said departmental proceeding, an original application was filed by him before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal which was marked as O.A.No. 4866/2001.

6. By reasons of its order dated 17.4.2003, the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal directed the State to conclude the departmental proceeding within a period of three months. The said order came to be questioned by the respondent herein before the High Court. In the meantime, a recovery proceeding was also initiated against him. The correctness or validity of the said recovery proceeding was also questioned by the respondent before the High Court. The High Court by its order dated 16.2.2005 passed in Writ Petition No. 110/2005, directed the third appellant herein to be personally present in court and explain the reasons as to why the amount of pension payable to the respondent to the respondent herein had not been paid despite the earlier directions of the High Court. The original respondent No.3 (appellant No. 3 herein) submitted his explanation. However, by reason of the impunged judgment the High Court, on the premise that the pension payable to the respondent has illegally been withheld for a payable to the respondent has illegally been withheld for a long time, directed:

16. The High Court did not consider any of the aforementioned aspects.

17. For the reasons aforementioned, the impugned judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained and it is set aside accordingly. we, however, direct the appellants to conclude the departmental proceeding at an early date but not later than six months from the date of communication of this order. It is open to the respondent herein to file additional representation before appropriate authority within a period of four weeks from date.

18. However, till a final decision is taken in the matter by the State, the recovery proceedings shall remain stayed.

19. This appeal is allowed with the aforementioned observations and directions . In the facts and circumstances of the case. there shall be no order as to costs.
State Bank Of India & Ors. .... ... vs Aspal Kaur ...Respondent(S)

The High Court ordered reconsideration of the case of Jaspal Kaur, respondent herein by its order dated 11.12.2003. On 05.03.2004, the Deputy General Manager of the Bank reconsidered the case of the respondent and declined appointment to the respondent on compassionate ground after taking into consideration the financial condition of the family. The Competent Authority thereafter declined the request of the respondent on 03.04.2004. This decision was conveyed to the respondent by the appellants on 05.04.2004. Thereafter, the respondent filed one more Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 9629/2004 before the Punjab and Haryana High Court praying for quashing of the order dated 03.04.2004. The appellants filed their reply on 03.05.2005. On 20.09.2005, the High Court allowed the writ petition filed by the respondents and observed that, "the aforesaid kitty of Rs. 4,57,607/- granted to the family on account of terminal benefits could not be accepted to be sufficient . The said amount was naturally in the shape of a security for the marriage of the daughtersIn our considered view the aforesaid income is not sufficient for the bare maintenance of the family".

We are now of the view that, the submissions made by the appellants deserve favourable consideration and merit acceptance.

Hence a major criterion while appointing a person on compassionate grounds should be the financial condition of the family the deceased person left behind. Unless the financial condition is entirely penury, such appointments cannot be made. In the present case the financial condition of the respondents family is not one of destitution, the appellants have already paid a sum of Rs.4,57,607/- as terminal benefits (after deducting Rs.19,183/- towards liabilities); a sum of Rs.2055/- p.m. was being paid towards family pension and monthly income under Staff Mutual Welfare Scheme and in addition the total monthly income of the family comes to Rs.5855/- (monthly pension of Rs.2055/- + Rs.3800/- p.m. as notional interest on the investment of Rs.4,57,607/-). The competent fact finding authority on the basis of the above financial details had arrived at the conclusion that the financial condition of the family is not penurious and that the family earns sufficient income to maintain themselves. Hence appointment on compassionate ground was not granted to the respondent. We however, do not feel the necessity to interfere with this order of the Bank Authority on the fact situation of this case.

In the result, we allow the appeal filed by the appellant the Bank in this case and set aside the order passed by the two Benches of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
National Institute Of Technology & Ors vs Niraj Kumar Singh

The Principal of the Appellant Institute received a letter from the said Mithilesh Kumar wherein it was alleged that several persons had been granted appointment after a long delay of about 10 years. The name of the respondent herein also figured therein. It was requested:

A notice to show cause thereafter was issued by the appellant, in terms whereof the respondent was asked to show cause as to why his appointment shall not be cancelled. Pursuant thereto cause was shown. The appointment of the respondent thereafter was cancelled by an order dated 1.03.2005 stating:

We, therefore, are of the opinion that the impugned judgment cannot be sustained which is set aside accordingly. The appeal is allowed. No costs.
M/S Puravankara Projects Ltd. Ã ... vs M/S Hotel Venus International And Ors. Ã ...

The background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

On 28.2.2005 the General Council of GIDA accepted bids of Venus for plot Nos. D3, D4 and D5 and confirmation letters of the said acceptance were issued on 1.4.2005 from Cochin addressed to the addressees in terms of Clause 19 of the tender. The addressees were in Trivandrum (Thiruvananthapuram).

The Notification of exemption of land in terms of Section 81(3)(b) of the Act was issued and published in the official gazette on 20.5.2005. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by Venus essentially holding that the exemption Notification should have preceded the tender and Venus could not have been expected to comply with tender conditions without an exemption Notification. The Writ Petitions filed by the appellants were dismissed. The writ appeals preferred in respect of the writ petitions were dismissed affirming the judgment of the learned Single Judge though on different grounds.

administrative sphere. However the decision must not only be tested by the application of Wednesbury principle of reasonableness (including its other facts pointed out above) but must be free from arbitrariness not affected by bias or actuated by mala fides.

In view of what we have stated above, it is not necessary to deal with the grievance raised by the State Government in its belated Special Leave Petition.

Judged at from any angle the order of the learned Single Judge as affirmed by the Division Bench cannot be maintained and is set aside.

The appellants had stated their willingness to match the amount offered by Venus and also to pay interest in terms of the contract. It has been stated that the whole amount shall be paid and they shall not give any bank guarantee. Let the amounts offered by Venus be paid by the appellants within a period of one month from today with interest @12% p.a. from the date of allotment. The amount, if any deposited by Venus will be refunded with interest @ 9% from the date of deposit within a period of six weeks.

The appeals are allowed but without any order as to costs.
Janardhanam Prasad vs Ramdas

Appellant herein and one M. Manoharan (1st Defendant) entered into an agreement for sale in respect of a property in suit. 1st Defendant and respondent No. 1 herein entered into another agreement for sale on 11.4.1983. In the former agreement the transaction by way of execution of the deed of sale was to be completed within a period of three months, whereas in the later case, no time limit was fixed. The 1st Defendant executed a registered deed of sale in favour of the appellant herein on 4.9.1985.

The 1st Defendant contended that he had asked the 2nd Defendant to execute a deed of sale in his favour and he had gone to the registration office, but 2nd Defendant did not turn up. As Respondent was working in Saudi Arabia, his affairs were being looked after by his father-in-law, Shri C.M. Raman Chettiar, and his wife, Smt. Vijaya. According to the 1st Defendant, he had paid Rs.7,700/- by way of part payment of the entire amount of consideration which was fixed at Rs.17,000/-. When he came back from Saudi Arabia in August, 1983, May, 1984, 1985 and 1986, he asked the Respondent No.2 to execute the deed of sale on receipt of the balance amount, but he had been avoiding to do the same.

The suit for specific performance of contract was thereafter filed. The said suit was dismissed. However, the First Appellate Court, on an appeal preferred thereagainst by the Respondent No.1, allowed the appeal and decreed the suit. By reason of the impugned judgment, the High Court has dismissed the second appeal.

Respondent had served a notice upon said M. Manoharan to perform his part of contract on 15.9.1986. The Respondent did not examine himself in the suit. His father-in-law and his wife had been examined on his behalf. In his deposition before the Court it is accepted that defendant Nos.1 and 2 were friends and, therefore, the stipulations, which are ordinarily made in an agreement for sale, were not made.

We, therefore, are of the opinion that the judgment passed in favour of the respondent no. 1 may be substituted by a decree directing defendant No.1 to refund the sum of Rs.7,700/- with 12% interest thereon from the date of payment till the date of realization.

The appeal is allowed in part and with the aforementioned modification. However, the parties shall pay and bear their own costs in this appeal.
Prasar Bharti & Ors vs Amarjeet Singh & Ors

At the very outset, it may be noticed that a Division Bench of this Court by an order dated 29.03.2005 noticed the unsatisfactory state of affairs prevailing in the matter as the Central Government employees who had been working in Akashvani Stations and Doordarshan Kendras continued to work in the Prasar Bharati for nearly eight years stating :

Respondents, therefore, in our opinion by reason of their conduct as also that of other players in the field, namely, the Union of India and Corporation must be held to have been deputed in the services of the Corporation. They would, therefore, be governed by the general principles of deputation. For the said purpose they are under the functional control of the Corporation which in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, in our opinion, would also imply that the Corporation had a power of transfer.

We do not find that the action taken by the appellants herein in transferring the respondents is in any way arbitrary or irrational. The orders of transfer have been passed in the interest of the administration and with a view to carry on its functions.

We, therefore, are of the opinion that the High Court was not correct in opining that the respondents could not be transferred by the Corporation. We would, however, before parting with the case, in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India issue a direction upon the Union of India. We have noticed hereinbefore that the Union of India itself had been filing writ petitions before the different High Courts. It did not do so in the instant case. It had to be impleaded as a party respondent.

We, therefore, while allowing the appeal, direct the Union of India to take a firm decision in terms of Section 11 of the Act within six months from date. The Secretary, Department of Personnel and Training shall file an affidavit before this Court within or immediately after the expiry of the aforementioned period.

Subject to the directions and observations made hereinbefore, the impugned judgments are set aside. These appeals are allowed. However, in the facts and circumstances of this case, there shall be no order as to costs.