L-NLProc/TathyaNyaya-and-FactLegalLlama-NyayaScrape-Datasets huggingface dataset:
Ivo Agnelo Santimano Fernandes & Ors vs Government Of Goa & Anr

3. Aggrieved, landowners-appellants 1 to 3 and one Ana Conceicao Antonieta Santimano filed reference petitions against the order of the LAC under Section 18 of the Act. The District Judge, South Goa, passed an award dated 19.08.1992, wherein the rate of Rs.45/- per sq. meter given by the LAC was upheld. Additionally, they were held entitled to severance charges @ 20% p.a. of Rs.45/- per sq. meter in respect of the non-

acquired portion of 37,731 sq. meters. They were also granted compensation in respect of a boundary wall amounting to Rs.31,720/-, and other statutory benefits. The total sum thus awarded to them was Rs.8,80,372/-.

4. On 7.3.1996, an order was issued by the Director of Sports and Youth Affairs, releasing funds to 2 the extent of Rs.8,80,372/-, placing the same at the disposal of Addl. Dy. Collector, L.A., South, Margoa, Goa, towards payment of the decretal order of the District Judge, South Goa, Margoa in the said land acquisition matter.

6. The death of Ana Conceicao Antonieta Santimano was not intimated to the government. Accordingly, pursuant to the award, the respondents prepared two cheques each in the sum of Rs.2,06,436/-

14. Aggrieved by the said order of the High Court, the appellants filed the present appeal.

(Emphasis added)

20. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and interest will be payable to the parties as per the order of the District Judge dated 18.8.2000. Such payment be released within a period of six weeks from date.

21.No order as to costs.
Rajalingam vs State Rep.By Inspector Of Police

2. Aggrieved by the conviction, they preferred C.A. No. 287 of 1998 and the Madras High Court by the impugned judgment maintained the conviction of the sole appellant but set aside the conviction and sentence of the other two accused persons and that is how the appellant is before us with the leave of the Court.

3. According to the prosecution, the appellant was employed as wireman while the other accused persons were employed as lineman at the Divisional Office of the State Electricity Board, Pallapatty. The 2 deceased Anandhan, the son of P.W.-1 Ponnambalam and P.W.-17 Shanmigathai were employed as contract labourers in the Board. According to the prosecution, prior to the date of incident, the staff of the Electricity Board collected donation during the Ramzan festival but the deceased refused to be associated with the collection of donation. It is alleged that during that period, appellant told him that he would be killed by electrocution. The prosecution has further alleged that on 6th of August,1991 at about 5.30 p.m., the appellant alongwith other accused came to the residence of the deceased and told him that an electric fault is to be rectified at Chinna Odai Street, Pallapatti. The deceased Anandhan was taken to the said place for rectification of the fault and was asked to climb on the electric post. According to the prosecution, appellant was standing down the electric post while the other accused were near the transformer and had switched off the electric line. It has further been alleged that while the work was going on, the appellant informed the other accused that work is over and they can switch on the line and as directed, the line was switched on and the deceased who was at work was electrocuted. In relation to the incident, a report was submitted by Kannan (P.W.-15), Junior Engineer of the Electricity Board to the Police Station and after investigation, charge sheet under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code was filed. It is relevant here to state that P.W.-1 Ponnambalam, the father of the deceased filed complaint inter alia alleging that the appellant alongwith other accused committed the murder of his 3 son in furtherance of their common intention.

10. The appellant is on bail. He shall be discharged of his bail bonds.

11. In the result, the appeal is allowed, impugned judgment of conviction and sentence is set aside with the direction aforesaid.
Tatipamula Naga Raju vs Pattem Padmavathi

4. The suit had been filed by the plaintiff (respondent herein) for recovery of Rs.1,90,000/- from the defendant, who is the appellant herein, with interest and the claim was based on a promissory note, which was alleged to have been executed by the defendant for Rs.1,25,000/-.

7. The case of the defendant was that though the Promissory note had been executed by him, no amount was payable by the defendant to the plaintiff. According to the defendant, he had borrowed Rs.1,25,000/- from the son of the plaintiff, namely Pattem Nanaji Sanker @ Nanaji. According to the defendant, four Promissory 4 notes had been executed by him. One Promissory note was for Rs.50,000/- and three Promissory notes were for Rs. 25,000/- each. The defendant was having financial difficulties and, therefore, he could not pay the said amount to Nanaji but with the help of certain mediators, he had settled the dues with Nanaji for Rs.90,000/- and paid the same to him.

13. The trial court also discussed the evidence led by the mediators i.e. DW-2 and DW-3, in whose presence the defendant had settled his dues with Nanaji, the son of the plaintiff. The suit was, therefore, dismissed.

14. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit, the plaintiff had filed an appeal, being Appeal Suit No.346 of 2006 which had been allowed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) 8 Vijayawada. The appeal was allowed because the lower appellate court put more stress on the execution of the Promissory note which had been admitted by the defendant. Moreover, the lower appellate court was of the view that if the dues had been settled, the defendant would not have permitted Nanaji to retain one Promissory note for Rs.25,000/- In the circumstances, the appeal was allowed and the suit was decreed with costs for Rs.1,90,000/- with interest thereon.

15. Being aggrieved by the order passed in the appeal, the defendant filed Second Appeal No. 587 of 2008 in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh and the said appeal was dismissed by the High Court because no substantial 9 question of law was involved in the appeal.

19. As the High Court did not find any substantial question of law, it did not entertain the second appeal.

20. For the aforestated reasons, we are in agreement with the conclusion arrived at by the trial court and, therefore, we set aside the order passed by the High Court as well as the order passed by the lower appellate court and restore the order passed by the trial court whereby the suit had been dismissed.

21. The appeal is allowed accordingly but without any order as to costs.
State Of Maharashtra & Ors vs M/S. Ark Builders Pvt.Ltd

3. The material facts of the case are brief and admitted by both sides. These may be stated thus. On March 20, 2003 the arbitrator gave a copy of the award, signed by him, to the claimant (the respondent) in whose favour the award was made. No copy of the award was, however, given to the appellant, the other party to the proceedings, apparently because the appellant had failed to pay the costs of arbitration. The respondent submitted a copy of the award in the office of the Executive Engineer (appellant no.4) on March 29, 2003, claiming payment in terms of the award. On April 16, 2003, the Executive Engineer submitted a proposal to challenge the award before the Chief Engineer, and the Financial Advisor and Joint Secretary. The respondent sent a reminder to the Chief Engineer on June 13, 2003, for payment of the money awarded to him by the arbitrator and a second reminder to the Secretary and Special Commissioner on January 8, 2004. The Executive Engineer by his letter dated January 15, 2004, acknowledged all the three letters of the claimant and informed him that the government had decided to challenge the award before the appropriate forum. 3

4. According to the appellants, the decision to make an application for setting aside the award was taken on December 16, 2003, but no application could be made for want of a copy of the award from the arbitrator. Hence, on January 17, 2004, a messenger was sent to the arbitrator with a letter asking for a copy of the award. The arbitrator made an endorsement on the letter sent to him stating that on the request of the claimant the original award was given to him and the Xerox copy of the award (sent to him along with the letter), was being certified by him as true copy of the award. The endorsement from the arbitrator along with the Xerox/certified copy of the award was received from the arbitrator on January 19, 2004 and on January 28, 2004, the appellants filed the application under section 34 of the Act.

( emphasis added )

(emphasis added) 1

18. In the light of the discussion made above this appeal must succeed. We, accordingly, set aside the judgments and orders passed by the Bombay High Court and the Principal District Judge, Latur. The application made by the appellants under section 34 of the Act is restored before the Principal District Judge, Latur, who shall now proceed to hear the parties on merits and pass an order on the application in accordance with law. Since the 1 matter is quite old, it is hoped and expected that the Principal District Judge will dispose this matter preferably within 6 months from the date of receipt of this order.
Ranu Hazarika & Ors vs State Of Assam & Ors

3. The material facts leading up to the filing of the writ petitions before the High Court may be stated as follows :

cancies that will occur in the near future. Admittedly, most of the writ petitioners had applied for joining the diploma course pursuant to the said 4 notice/advertisement and thus, completed the two years course leading to the award of diploma. After the commencement of the said course in the year 2000, two batches, totalling 900 persons, completed the course, qualified and were awarded diploma. However, the State Government discontinued the course with effect from the year 2003.

ment. However, henceforth and in the future, the process of recruitment of 7 teachers in the lower Primary Schools will have to conform to the require-

clared the Amendment Rules, 2005 as illegal, the High Court fell into an error in not setting aside the entire selection process initiated vide em-

16. Having bestowed our anxious consideration to the matter, we are of the opinion that the decision of the High Court, permitting the State Govern-

herence to the Statutory Regulations framed by the NCTE cannot be left to be determined at the discretion of the authorities of the State Govern-

tioned by it. We are of the view that the impugned observation by the High Court would be clearly inimical to the rule of law. While it is trite that Courts can exercise judicial discretion in moulding the relief, however, such discretion cannot be exercised to perpetuate and encour-

17. For the foregoing reasons, the appeals are allowed; the leave granted by the High Court to the State to complete the selection process in terms of employment notice dated 2nd December, 2005 is set aside and the said no-

tice (dated 2nd December, 2005) is also quashed.

18.However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs.

FEBRUARY 28, 2011.

RS 1
M/S. Mustan Taherbhai vs Commnr. Of Central Excise & Customs

The sale in favour of the appellant was confirmed by the High Court and in furtherance thereof, the possession of the ship was delivered on 4th March, 1993. Thereafter, on 10th May, 1993, on the direction of the Superintendent of Central Excise & Customs, the appellant filed a bill of 2 entry claiming that the ship was an Indian built ship, and therefore, no customs duty was payable. On 12th May, 1993, the Superintendent of Central Excise, Jamnagar passed a provisional assessment order demanding customs duty @ 5%, and an additional duty of `1000/- per LDT.

11.Accordingly, the Tribunal re-considered the matter. As stated above, vide the impugned order, the Tribunal has dismissed the appeal, observing thus:

12.Hence, the present appeal.

18.We are thus, convinced that it is a fit case which should be remanded back to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication and determination of the question of leviability of import duty on an Indian-built ship brought into India for breaking purpose. For the view we have taken, we deem it unnecessary to deal with other contentions urged by the learned counsel.

19.Resultantly, the appeal is allowed; the impugned order is set aside, and the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration, in accordance with law, bearing in mind the observations of this Court in C.A. No. 1998 of 2000. There will, however, be no order as to costs.

FEBRUARY 28, 2011.

RS 1
Prahalad Patel vs State Of M.P

brother of the accused was also present in the mine but, out of fear, Nanhebhai (PW-1) and Gudda did not try to save the deceased. Thereafter, Nanhebhai (PW-1) rushed to the house of Daulat and narrated the whole incident to his brother and 2 mother. They went to the mine and brought Daulat. He was taken to Police Station Rahli but by that time he became unconscious. The report of the incident (Ex. P-1) was lodged by Nanhebhai (PW-1) in the Police Station. Thereafter, Daulat was sent for medical examination to the hospital at Rahli. Dr. Gupta (PW-9) examined him and issued a report (Ex.P-10) mentioning various injuries. On the advise of the doctor, in an unconscious condition, he was taken to Medical College Hospital at Jabalpur for further treatment. During treatment, he succumbed to injuries. The dead body was sent for post-

mortem and Dr. A.K.Jain (PW-16) conducted the post-mortem and prepared a report (Ex. P-21). According to him, the cause of death was due to cut and other injuries.

(b) During investigation, police prepared a spot map and seized the blood stained sand and simple sand from the place of incident. The accused was taken into custody and the axe was recovered at his instance. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused under Section 302 IPC.

(e) Being aggrieved by the order of the Sessions Judge, the accused preferred an appeal before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur. The Division Bench of the High Court, by its impugned judgment dated 14.03.2005, upheld the conclusion arrived at by the Sessions Judge and confirmed the conviction and sentence of the accused.

(viii) Multiple small abrasion present over the face below the left eye and chin."

9) Consequently, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed.

MARCH 2, 2011.
State Of Rajasthan vs Mahesh Kumar Sharma

3. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are thus:-

4. The respondent felt aggrieved and hence filed a writ petition which was allowed by the learned Single Judge and the appeal therefrom was dismissed by the Division Bench and hence this appeal by special leave by the State of Rajasthan.

9. In the circumstances, we allow this appeal and set aside the Judgment rendered by the Division Bench as well as by the Single Judge. The writ petition filed by the respondent will stand dismissed.

11. The appeal is allowed and disposed of accordingly. However, there shall be no order as to the costs.

DATED MARCH 2, 2011
Prema & Anr vs Deva Rao & Ors

High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore on 6th December, 2007 in RFA No. 1067/2006 and RFA No. 1068/2006, these appeals have been filed by the original plaintiff and defendant no.3.

4 The plaintiff (appellant No. 1 herein) is a sister of defendant no.4 who filed a suit claiming her right to the extent of 1/6th share in the properties described in Schedule-A to the plaint. The case of the plaintiff before the trial court was that her father, Appuraya was an absolute owner of the suit property and, therefore, the plaintiff had a right in the said property. According to her, after the death of her father Appuraya, defendant No.4, brother of the plaintiff was in occupation of the suit property but as the suit property was an absolute property of her father, she too had a share in the property.

4 6. Being aggrieved by the judgment delivered by the trial court, the plaintiff; and defendant nos. 1 and 3 filed RFA No. 1067 of 2006 whereas defendant no. 4 filed RFA No. 1068 of 2006 in the High Court of Karnataka. The High Court heard both the appeals together and by the impugned common judgment, the High Court dismissed RFA No. 1067/2006 filed by the plaintiff and allowed RFA No. 1068/2006 filed by the 4th defendant.

16. In our opinion, for the aforestated reasons, the High Court has rightly allowed the appeal of defendant no.4 and dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiff and defendant nos.1 and 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we dismiss both the appeals with no order as to costs.
Union Of India & Ors vs Vartak Labour Union

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts essential for adjudication of the present appeals may be stated as follows:

3. Vide judgment dated 27th August, 1996, the High Court allowed the writ petition, and directed appellant No.1 to regularize the services of the members of the respondent who have been in service for more than five years, within six months of the date of order.

9. Hence, the present appeals against the main judgment and the order in review.

19.In light of the settled legal position and on a conspectus of the factual scenario noted above, the impugned directions by the High Court cannot be sustained. These are set aside accordingly.

(Emphasis supplied by us)

21.Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, where members of the respondent Union have been employed in terms of the 13 Regulations and have been consistently engaged in service for the past thirty to forty years, of course with short breaks, we feel, the Union of India would consider enacting an appropriate regulation/scheme for absorption and regularization of the services of the casual workers engaged by BRO for execution of its on-going projects.

22.In the final analysis, the appeals are allowed, and the impugned judgments and orders are set aside. However, in the circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs.

March 4, 2011.

ARS 14
Sant Singh vs Sukhdev Singh & Ors

2. The appellant-claimant, Sant Singh, on 8.11.2004, was going to Dera Bassi from Chandigarh as a pillion-rider on the scooter (No. CH-01-P-

03-E-4525) came from the Dera Bassi side in a rash and negligent manner and struck the scooter. As a result of the collision, Nahar Singh and the appellant fell down and sustained multiple injuries. The appellant fractured his left leg below the knee and both the bones of his right leg.

3. The appellant filed a claim petition before the MACT under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming Rs.5 lacs as compensation along with 24% interest. The appellant was 48 years of age on the date of the accident and claimed to be working as a Work Munshi and earning Rs.4000/- p.m.

4. The MACT awarded total compensation of Rs.1,47,209/-. MACT awarded Rs.5,000/- as compensation for hospitalization, special diet, 2 attendant and transportation. As permanent disability of the limb had been assessed at 60%, it awarded Rs.1,20,000/- as compensation for permanent disability based on the reasoning in Piara Singh & Ors. v. Satpal Kumar & Ors. [Vol. CZCVI-2 (2007-2) PLR 143 (P&H)]. It also awarded Rs.22,209/- for cost incurred in purchase of medicines. Thus, the total compensation came to Rs.1,47,209/- with interest at 7.5%. MACT held all the respondents to be jointly and severally liable to pay the said amount to the petitioner.

7. Having heard the parties and on perusal of evidence on record, we are of the opinion that the appeal of the appellant deserves to be allowed.

14. The appellant was earning Rs.4,000/- p.m. which amounts to Rs.48,000/- per year. After deduction of 1/3rd for personal expenses, the annual income of the appellant would be Rs.32,000/-. As per the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, as the appellant was aged 48 years, a multiplier of 13 is to be applied. Accordingly, appellant is entitled to compensation of Rs.4,16,000/-. We also award Rs.5,000/- as compensation for hospitalization, special diet, attendant and transportation and Rs.22,209/- for cost incurred in purchase of medicines. Thus, total compensation amounts to Rs.4,43,209/-, which is rounded off to Rs.4,43,000/-. The compensation shall be payable to the appellant along with interest at the rate of 9% by all the respondents jointly and severally.

15. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.
Dev Sharan & Ors vs State Of U.P.& Ors

3. The appellants challenge the acquisition of their agricultural lands by the State of Uttar Pradesh for the construction of the district jail of Shahjahanpur. The appellants themselves are bhumidar with transferable rights and are residents of village Murchha, tehsil Puwayan in the district of Shahjahanpur, Uttar Pradesh.

4. The State of Uttar Pradesh vide its office memorandum dated 25.10.2004 constituted a committee under the Chairmanship of the Hon'ble Minister of Revenue to suggest its recommendations for transfer of prisons situated in the congested areas of various districts. After conducting its second and final meeting on 10th January, 2005, the said committee recommended to the State Government the shifting of the district 2 jails from congested areas to outside the city limits within the district. As per the schedule, this shifting was to be done in two phases:

5. The existing district jail of Shahjahanpur, constructed in 1870, was one of the oldest and required shifting to a new premises.

37. The question is whether in the admitted facts of this case, invoking the urgency clause under Section 17 (4) is justified.

41. For the reasons aforesaid, we hold that the State Government was not justified, in the facts of this case, to invoke the emergency provision of Section 17(4) of the Act. The valuable right of the appellants under Section 5A of the Act cannot flattened and steamrolled on the `ipsi dixit' of the executive authority. The impugned notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act in so far as they relate to the appellants' land are quashed. The possession of the appellants in respect of 26 their land cannot be interfered with except in accordance with law.

42. The appeals are allowed. No order as to costs.
Ajit Kumar vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors

3. The appellant herein was working as sub-ordinate Judge in Garhwa, Jharkhand when an order was issued by the Governor of Jharkhand removing him from service by an order issued on 31.07.2003 on the basis of a resolution of the Full 1 Court of the High Court of Jharkhand recommending his removal from service.

16. Therefore, we find no reason to interfere with the action taken against the appellant nor we find any infirmity in the impugned judgment and order of the High Court. All the contentions raised are found to be without merit.

17. Accordingly, we do not find any merit in this appeal and we dismiss the same but leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

.............................................J [Dr. Mukundakam Sharma] .............................................J [Anil R. Dave] New Delhi, March 10, 2011.