L-NLProc/TathyaNyaya-and-FactLegalLlama-NyayaScrape-Datasets huggingface dataset:
The State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Faquirey

3. A charge under Section 302 IPC was framed against the Respondent and Santosh was charged under Section 302 read with 34 IPC. After a detailed consideration of the material on record including the oral testimonies of PW-1 and PW-2 who were the eye witnesses, the Trial Court held that the Respondent had fired at the deceased from his pistol as he had a doubt that the deceased was visiting his house with an evil eye on his wife. While the Trial Court acquitted Santosh, the Respondent was convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-.

6. After examining the matter carefully, we are of the opinion that the judgment of the High Court is liable to be set aside and the judgment of the Trial Court to be restored. There is no dispute that the shot fired from the pistol by the Respondent is due to the grudge that he had against the deceased. Immediately after the deceased arrived at the place of incident, the Respondent’s attention was diverted from the dispute that was being settled in the Panchayat. He turned to the deceased and shot him in view of his past conduct relating to the visit of the deceased to his house to become close with his wife.

9. For the aforementioned reasons, the judgment of the High Court is set aside and the judgment of the Trial Court convicting the Respondent under Section 302 IPC and sentencing him to life imprisonment is restored. The 6 Respondent is directed to surrender within a period of four weeks to serve the remaining sentence.

10. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.

…................................J [L. NAGESWARA RAO] ..……..........................J [SANJAY KISHAN KAUL] New Delhi, February 11, 2019 7
Sau. Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar vs The State Of Maharashtra

2. It was alleged by the complainant that her father Shamrao Nalavade expired on 17.01.1994. The Respondents Digitally signed by were accused of forgery and preparing false documents on the DEEPAK GUGLANI Date: 2019.02.12 15:54:03 IST Reason: basis of which a development agreement dated 11.12.2002 came into existence. On the basis of the above facts, the 1 complainant alleged that the Respondents made themselves liable for being prosecuted under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the IPC’). The complaint that was filed on 18.11.2008 was sent for investigation under Section 156 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The police submitted a report stating that the matter appeared to be of a civil nature.

10. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the judgment of the High Court is set aside.

..…................................J [L. NAGESWARA RAO] ..…................................J [M.R. SHAH] New Delhi, February 12, 2019.
Sukhpal Singh vs The State Of Punjab

2. On 27/06/1993 upon discovery of an unidentified body near a canal and the case being registered and upon investigation being conducted the appellant along with another came to be charge sheeted and charged with the commission of offences under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC. They were also charged with the offence under Section 201 of the IPC. Before the trial Court the prosecution examined PW1 to PW17. The appellant examined DW1 and DW2. The trial Court convicted the appellant while it acquitted the co-accused. As already noticed the High Court has affirmed the 3 conviction and sentence of the accused- appellant.

February 12, 2019
Mahesh Dube vs Shivbodh Dube

1. Shankar Prasad Dube, father of the respondents was a tenant of Prayag Prasad Dube, father of the appellant. A suit for eviction on account of non­payment of rent was filed by Prayag Prasad Dube against Shankar Prasad. The suit was decreed. In execution of the decree, possession of the house was delivered to Prayag Prasad Dube on 26.11.1985, and he, put his own lock on the house. On the night intervening on 26.11.1985 and 27.11.1985, the respondents herein along with their father Shankar Prasad Dube and grandmother trespassed into the 2 house of Prayag Prasad Dube and forcibly took possession of the house. Thereafter, Prayag Prasad Dube lodged a report against the respondents and their father and grandmother Gomti Devi. Charges were framed against the accused. Gomti Devi died during the pendency of the trial and the respondents along with their father Shankar Prasad Dube were convicted by the Trial Court under Section 448 of I.P.C. The Trial Court while convicting the respondents and their father also directed that the case propertybe handed over to the complainant.

2. Thereafter, the respondents and their father filed an appeal before the Sessions Judge which was dismissed on 18.11.1997. After dismissal of the appeal, the father of the present appellant filed an application under Section 456 Cr.P.C. for handing over the possession of the property to him. The Trial Court rejected the application only on the ground that it had been filed beyond the period of 30 days from the date of order of the Appellate Court. ARevision Petition was filed,which was dismissed. A petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was filed before the High Court and the same was also dismissed on 19.09.2008. Hence, this appeal.

7. In view of the above discussion, the present appeal is allowed. The order of the High Court in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.7799 of 1998 dated 19.09.2008, the order of the Sessions Court in Criminal Revision No.234 of 1998 dated 02.09.1998, the order of the Trial Court in M. J. C. No.1 of 1998 dated 01.05.1998 are set aside and the respondents are directed to handover the possession of the property, which is the subject matter of the case and from which the appellant and his father were forcibly dispossessed, to the appellant within one month of 6 the service by a certified copy of this order upon the respondents. The appeal is allowed accordingly in the aforesaid terms. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.
State Bank Of India vs Ravindra Nath

2. The respondent-writ petitioner before the High Court joined the appellant Bank in the year 1981. After almost nineteen years vide letter dated 24.06.2000, he was posted at Johannesburg Branch (South Africa) as Manager (Credit) as a Scale V Officer on a fixed salary of US $ 1965 (net) per month but subject to change from time to time. Apart from Digitally signed by SANJAY KUMAR such salary, the respondent was granted various allowances including Date: 2019.02.12 16:47:08 IST Reason: reimbursement of education expenses of the children, usage of Bank’s 1 car, leave and reimbursement of medical expenses apart from the host of other allowances. The relevant clause in respect of salary reads as under:

16. It is in view of such directions that the appellant Bank framed service conditions and allied matters. It is thereafter on 15.1.2001, the Working Group of the Standing Committee decided the salary payable to the Officers of the Bank. Such salary structure is meant for all Officers of Public Sector Banks posted abroad. Such recommendations are applicable in non-discriminatory manner to all Officers of the Public Sector Banks.

21. Since, the salary has been fixed for all Officers of the Public Sector Banks in a non-discriminatory manner keeping in view the Cost of Living Index, we find that the High Court erred in law in setting aside the 10 reduction in salary. There is reasonable basis of reduction of salary. Still further there was no promise ever made to the respondent-writ petitioner that his salary of US $ 1965 shall remain unchanged during the period of his posting. In fact, as reproduced above, it was categorically mentioned that the salary as well as perquisites are subject to change from time to time. Therefore, mere fact that the salary was changed subsequently, it will not confer any legally enforceable right in favour of the respondent to challenge the same on the ground that the same is arbitrary or unjust.

22. The present appeal is allowed. The order passed by the Bombay High Court is set aside and the Writ Petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.
Gagan Kumar vs The State Of Punjab

3. The appeal involves a short controversy as would be clear from the facts set out hereinbelow.

19. If the Magistrate failed in her duty, the Additional Sessions Judge and the High Court should have noticed this error committed by the Magistrate and accordingly should have corrected it. It was, however, not done and hence interference is called for to that extent.

20. As mentioned above, the appellant was convicted and accordingly punished with a sentence to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment with a 7 fine amount of Rs.1000/­ and in default of payment of fine amount to further undergo one month simple imprisonment under Section 304­A and 6 months rigorous imprisonment with a fine amount of Rs.1000/­ and in default of payment of fine amount to further undergo 15 days simple imprisonment under Section 279 IPC.

24. The appeal thus succeeds and is allowed in part. The impugned order is modified only to the extent mentioned in para 21 above.

February 14, 2019.
Rahul Dutta vs The State Of Bihar

The papers will consist of objective questions of multiple choice, one being the correct answer. OMR Answer Sheets shall be used and evaluated by computer in the Commission’s premises. The Syllabi for the two papers shall be the same as prescribed for General Knowledge and General Science and the Law Papers in the written examination, respectively.

Provided that in the event of candidates from the reserved categories, other than the General category, falling short of the percentages fixed for them in the State Government Services under the relevant Act vis-a- vis the total number of successful candidates in 2 the Preliminary Test, so many candidates from those categories shall be additionally included, to the extent of the deficit, as per their respective merit, in the list of the successful candidates to take the written examination.”

FEBRUARY 14, 2019.
Prof. R.K. Vijayasarathy vs Sudha Seetharam

The facts relevant to the present dispute are thus: Digitally signed by DEEPAK SINGH Date: 2019.02.15

(iv) The complaint is not required to verbatim reproduce the legal ingredients of the offence alleged. If the necessary factual foundation is laid in the complaint, merely on the 5 (2006) 6 SCC 736 4 ground that a few ingredients have not been stated in detail, the proceedings should not be quashed. Quashing of the complaint is warranted only where the complaint is so bereft of even the basic facts which are absolutely necessary for making out the offence.

February 15, 2019.
Giriraj Garg vs Coal India Ltd.

2. The factual matrix of the present case, briefly stated, is as under:

2.3. The Appellant was declared successful with respect to various coal orders. Sale orders were issued in favour of the Appellant, pursuant to which he deposited the Earnest Money Deposit (hereinafter referred to as “EDM”) and the coal value as per Clause 2.5 and 5.2 of the 2007 Scheme respectively. 2.4. As per Clause 7.2 of the 2007 Scheme, a period of 45 days was allowed to the Appellant from the date of issue of the delivery order, to lift the coal. The 3 Appellant for certain reasons was unable to lift the booked quantity of coal.

The Respondents failed to appoint an arbitrator as per Clause 11.12 of the 2007 Scheme. 2.7. The Appellant was therefore constrained to file an Application u/S. 11 before the Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi, for appointment of an independent arbitrator.

10 (2018) 2 SCC 519 16 this case, the Court expanded the application of this doctrine by holding that even a general reference to a standard form contract of one party, along with those of trade associations, and professional bodies would be sufficient to incorporate the arbitration clause.

The words “in relation thereto” used in Clause 11.12 of the 2007 Scheme indicate that the clause would apply to all transactions which took place under the 2007 Scheme. This would include the sale transactions in the present case.

5.2. In view of the above discussion, the view taken by the learned Single Judge is erroneous, and is hereby set­aside. The appeal is allowed.

13 1988 (36) ELT 201 (SC) 19 The appointment of Mr. Justice Chattopadhyay will be subject to the disclosure and declaration made, as per the Sixth Schedule to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (as amended by the 2015 Amendment Act).

The proceedings will be conducted in Kolkata. Ordered accordingly.
Union Of India vs Lt Colonel Dharamvir Singh

2 The respondent is a Lieutenant Colonel in the Indian Army. On 20 September 2016, as an officer of the Intelligence Corps, he was posted to 3 Corps Intelligence and Surveillance Unit1. On 30 June 2018 he was posted from 3 CISU as an Officer Commanding 2 Detachment in Imphal to Nanded in 1[“3 CISU”] 1 Maharashtra. His successor, Lt Colonel RP Nanda addressed two letters on 30 June 2018 and 2 July 2018 to his Commanding Officer implicating breaches of discipline, violations of the Arms Act 1959, and security and administrative lapses by the respondent. According to the petitioners, on being directed to report to Unit Headquarters by his Commanding Officer at 3 CISU, the respondent moved to Dimapur. On 4 July 2018 a Habeas Corpus Petition 2 was instituted before the High Court of Manipur by his spouse. On 5 July 2018, the High Court directed the authorities to ensure the presence of the respondent. In compliance with the order of the High Court, the respondent appeared in Court, when an order was passed, recording that:

While doing so, the High Court adverted to a file which was placed in a sealed cover before it. The High Court noted that the order of attachment was ordered pursuant to a communication dated 29 September 2018 of the Lieutenant General and General Officer Commanding (GOC) enclosing a report dated 2 July 2018 of Lt Col R P Nanda, who was transferred in place of the respondent. It is at that stage that the High Court also noted that the order of attachment appeared to have been issued after the respondent had filed an affidavit on 20 July 2018 in Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 11 of 2018. The High Court observed that the subject of the said Criminal Writ Petition pertained to an allegation against certain members of the 3 Corps Intelligence Unit going back to 18 August 2011. The High Court took note of the fact that an SIT has been constituted by the Guwahati High Court in Writ Petition (C) 2481 of 2014. On the basis that nothing appears to have been 4 done by any authority in respect of the alleged incidents which took place on 18 August 2011, the High Court proceeded to confirm its interim order dated 5 November 2018.

16 We allow the appeal and set aside the impugned orders of the High Court dated 5 November 2018 and 24 January 2019. In consequence, Writ Petition (Civil) 1031 of 2018 filed by the respondent before the High Court of Manipur shall stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending applications are accordingly disposed of.

……..…….……………………………………….J [Dr DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD] …….…..…….………………………………….J [HEMANT GUPTA] NEW DELHI FEBRUARY 15, 2019 8
Gwalior Distilleries Pvt. Ltd. vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

3. The order by which the request for issuance of CS-1 licence was rejected by the Respondent No.2 was challenged by the Appellant as being in violation of Articles 14 and 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India. The Appellant alleged discrimination since eight other distillers in the State of Madhya Pradesh who were similarly situated to the Appellant, not possessing CS-1 and CS-1-1B licence were allowed to participate in the tender process. The Appellant relied upon the observations of the High Court in its judgment dated 21.03.2018, in Writ Petition No.6525 of 2018 filed by the Appellant, that neither the Act nor the Rules made thereunder required allotment of an area for grant of CS-1 licence.

(b) [Licence in Form C.S. 1 shall be granted by the Excise Commissioner as aforesaid on payment of fee in advance at the rate of one lakh rupees for a period of one year’s licence or such proportional amount of fees for the period of licence to be granted.] The licensee shall be required to deposit additional amount of Rs.5 lacs as security in cash or in any other form as may be directed by the Excise Commissioner for the due observance of conditions of licence, provisions of the Act and the rules made thereunder and orders issued by State Government or Excise Commissioner. The Excise Commissioner may ask for additional sum as security amount not exceeding Rs.10 lacs as and when he deems it necessary in circumstances of repeated breaches of conditions of increase in area of supply and the licencee shall comply with such order within 15 days of its communication to him.”

8. For the aforementioned reasons, the judgment of the High Court is set aside and the appeal is allowed.
Mmtc Ltd. vs M/S.Vedanta Ltd.

2. The brief facts leading to the instant appeal are as follows:

3. Importantly, under the aforementioned agreement, the Appellant raised its own invoices in the name of the customers of the products sold and delivered. Goods were to be sold only against payment of 100% advance by the customer to the Appellant, who then had to remit the same to the Respondent after deducting service charges (i.e. commission) at the rate of Rs. 500/­ per metric tonne.

20. The Courts also rightly relied upon the communication dated 06.12.1995 from the Respondent to the Appellant adverting to the terms and conditions of the contract between the parties and referring to the fact that in respect of the sales made to HTPL 13 in the period of April, May and July 1995, an amount of Rs. 9.2 crores together with interest was still to be received. The response to the above communication, from the Appellant to the Respondent, dated 08.12.1995, stated that the Appellant had taken steps to set the matter right, and that the Appellant had had certain internal difficulties which had since been resolved and the Respondent would have no grounds to complain thereafter. This communication clearly demonstrates the duty of the Appellant to recover the dues from HTPL and forward the same to the Respondent.

25. Appeal is, therefore, dismissed and the order of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Appeal No. 949 of 2002 is affirmed.

February 18, 2019.
S. Kumar(Dead) vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

2. ASHOK RAJ SINGH Date: 2019.02.18 17:12:38 IST In the impugned judgment and order dated 21.06.2001, the High Court has Reason: made substantial downward revision of the amount of compensation awarded by 1 the Tribunal to the injured claimant-appellant; and in place of the amount awarded by the Tribunal to the tune of Rs. 4,58,060/- together with interest @ 15% p.a., has awarded a sum of Rs. 2,11,060/- together with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim application. The High Court has made such reduction in the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal after disbelieving the case of 95% permanent partial disablement, as projected by the claimant and accepted by the Tribunal; and has allowed compensation only with reference to the injury of fracture of left thigh bone, as originally certified.

4. As regards his alleged injuries and disablement, the appellant examined two doctors in evidence namely, Dr. Sai Chandran as PW-1 and Dr. Thiagarajan as PW-4. While PW-1 pointed out that after examination, he found the left leg of the claimant-appellant shortened by 2” due to the fracture of upper portion of his thigh bone; that he could not sit and stand freely; and that his hip movements were reduced by 15o because of which, he could not do any hard labour. The said doctor had assessed the permanent partial disablement of the claimant- appellant at 45%. However, in order to prove further disablement, the claimant examined PW-4, who stated that on examination of the claimant-appellant, he found fracture of left thigh bone and injury on skull; and that his left testis had not come back to original position. The said doctor PW-4 even deposed to the extent that the claimant-appellant would not be able to perform intercourse; and purportedly assessed the permanent partial disablement at further 50%. 3

14. For what has been discussed and observed hereinabove, this appeal fails and is, therefore, dismissed.
Md.Rojali Ali . vs The State Of Assam Ministry Of Home ...

3. The case of the prosecution in brief is that 26 persons including the appellants herein, armed with deadly weapons like spears, arrows, lathis etc. surrounded the house of Md. Aziz Ali, Md. Kutub Ali, Md. Mamud Ali and Samir Ali at about 6.00 a.m. on 9.11.1995 and trespassed into their house, dragged them outside and then assaulted them. As a result of this, Md. Aziz Ali, Md. Kutub Ali, Md. Mamud Ali and Samir Ali (not mentioned as deceased in FIR) succumbed to the injuries sustained by them and one Md. Atar Ali was injured. Though 26 persons were arrayed as accused in the first information, the chargesheet came to be filed against 15 persons. During the course of the trial, one of the accused died, and two others absconded. Thus, the trial was held against 12 accused, 8 of whom are the appellants herein. The Trial Court after following due procedure convicted the appellants under Sections 148, 323 and 302 read with 149 of 2 the Indian Penal Code (for short, “the IPC”), and acquitted the other accused. The judgment of the Trial Court came to be confirmed by the High Court. Hence, the convicted accused are in appeal before us.

7. In view of the ample ocular evidence on record, the motive for commission of the offence may not be so significant in this matter.

17. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we find no ground to interfere with the impugned judgment. Hence, the appeal is hereby dismissed.

February 19, 2019.
Union Of India vs Avtar Chand

2. A few facts need mention infra for the disposal of these appeals which involve a short point.

3. The appellant No.1 is the Union of India (Commander, Western Base Workshop, General Reserve Engineers Force at Pathankot) and respondent No.2 is its official (Chief Engineer(Project), Sampark, P.O. Gangyal, Jammu) whereas the respondents are the workers.

4. The respondents, who were the skilled workers, worked with the appellant No.1’s workshop (GREF) at Pathankot for the period from 01.03.2001 to 30.06.2004. The respondents, however, raised a grievance that during the said period, they were paid less wages than the minimum wages fixed for their category of employment under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (for short called, “the Act”) and which were legally payable to them.

19. In view of the foregoing discussion, we allow the appeals and modify the impugned order to the extent that each respondent­worker is held entitled to claim compensation amount at the rate of 100%, i.e., Rs.49,804/­ in place of 200% which was awarded by the Courts below.

20. In other words, now each respondent­worker is held entitled to receive a sum of Rs.49,804/­ (100%) towards his claim plus Rs.49,804/­ by way of compensation = total Rs.99,608/­.

21. The appellants are directed to pay a sum of Rs.99,608/­ to each respondent­worker within three months from the date of this order after proper verification.

February 19, 2019.