L-NLProc/TathyaNyaya-and-FactLegalLlama-NyayaScrape-Datasets huggingface dataset:
Gulzar Ahmed Azmi & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors

6. In the fifth prayer they seek for a direction to the first respondent for taking action against communal organisations like RSS, VHP and their allied forums who alleged to have indulged in bomb blasts cases and other terror related activities. In the last prayer they seek for a direction to release on bail the detenus arrested in bomb blasts cases referred to in Annexure P-45 against whom there is no clinching or conclusive evidence.

8. At the very outset, we wish to state that if the prayer of the petitioners were to be accepted for whatever grounds stated in the petition and any such Committee is directed to be constituted that will only result in making a roving inquiry into the various criminal proceedings so far lodged connected with cases of bomb blasts all over the country. We are not, therefore, inclined to countenance such a wide prayer asked for in this writ petition.

11. It will be for the concerned individuals who face such criminal proceedings to work out their remedy in the manner known to law. Even if such individuals are not in a position to seek for any appropriate legal assistance on their own, having regard to the set up of Legal Service Authority and its effective functioning, in the nook and corner of the country, there should be no dearth of legal assistance for those affected persons to seek for such legal aid free of cost. Therefore, when there is no dearth for seeking legal assistance free of cost, on that score as well it cannot be held that the concerned individuals will be left with no remedy. In fact, it is now well known that on mere asking of the concerned presiding officer, those involved in such criminal proceedings are being offered free legal aid of high calibre in order to ensure that no innocent person is being punished for want of proper legal assistance.

12. Having regard to the above factors, we do not find any scope to entertain this writ petition and leave it open for the concerned parties against whom any criminal proceeding is lodged to work out their remedies in the appropriate manner before the appropriate forum in accordance with law. The writ petition fails and the same is dismissed.

October 11, 2012
Hindustan Copper Ltd vs Monarch Gold Mining Co. Ltd

5. In the matter of Hindustan Copper Limited, one Designate Judge first passed the order on 9.6.2011 holding that the request for appointment of the arbitrator was proper and then ordered that the application should be referred to Hon’ble Delegate of the Chief Justice for appointment of an arbitrator. The relevant part of the order dated 9.6.2011 reads as under :

7. In the appeal of M/s. Choudhury Construction, the Designate Judge on 6.9.2011 passed the following order :

18. In view of the above, the impugned orders are set aside. The arbitration petitions are restored to the file of the High Court for appropriate consideration, as noted above. The appeals are allowed to the above extent. No order as to costs.

OCTOBER 11, 2012.
Usha Mehata vs Government Of A.P. & Ors

This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court whereby the writ appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed and the order passed by the learned Single Judge declining to interfere with the decision taken by the State Government not to regularize the lease deed executed in her favour in respect of land measuring 413 sq. yards was upheld. On an application made by the appellant, the land in question is said to have been leased out to her vide deed dated 10.1.1972 prepared by Venkat Rao, the then Inspector employed in the office of the Estate Officer, Secunderabad in the name of the Revenue Secretary of the State. After getting the lease deed, the appellant applied for permission to raise construction. The Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad refused to grant permission on the ground that the land was earmarked for road and the lease deed executed in favour of the appellant appeared to be fictitious. Thereupon, the appellant approached District Collector and other functionaries of the Government, who recommended regularization of the lease. However, vide memo dated 16.11.1988, the State Government finally rejected the representation of the appellant. That memo reads as under:

The stay granted in the Government memo 2nd cited is hereby vacated.

Sathi Nair, Secretary to Government.” The appellant challenged the decision of the State Government in Writ Petition No. 17494 of 1988 which was disposed of by the learned Single Judge of the High Court vide order dated 12.03.1991 with a direction to the State Government to pass appropriate order after hearing the appellant and respondent Nos. 4 to 6. The relevant portions of that order are reproduced below:

The Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the Registrar (Judicial), Andhra Pradesh High Court by Fax.

Today, we have dismissed the appeal (Civil Appeal NO.3501/2003 arising out of SLP (C) No.16383/2001). Therefore, the Contempt Petition is also dismissed.

(With appln(s) for permission to file additional documents and office report) WITH CONTEMPT PETITION(C) NO. 360 OF 2002 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3501/2003 (with appln(s) for exemption from filing OT and with office report) Date: 16/10/2012 This Appeal and Petition were called on for hearing today.

CORAM :
Sajeesh Babu K vs N.K.Santhosh & Ors

d) Against the said judgment, the appellant herein filed a Writ Appeal being No. 464 of 2011 before the High Court. The Division Bench of the High Court, by impugned judgment dated 06.04.2011, dismissed the said appeal.

5) It is the claim of the appellant that the Corporation, after conducting interviews and evaluating the merits and demerits of the candidates as per the procedure prescribed under the guidelines for selection of Bharatgas Distributors, selected him for grant of licence of LPG distributorship for Edavanna, Malappuram District, Kerala. It is also pointed out that as per the tabulation sheet, the appellant had scored highest marks than the other candidates with reference to qualification, experience, age, business ability and personality and was placed in the first position whereas Respondent No.3 herein was placed in the second and respondent No.1 herein was placed in the third position.

20) In the light of the above discussion, we set aside the judgment of the learned single Judge of the High Court dated 16.03.2011 in W.P.(C) No. 7622 of 2010 as well as the judgment of the Division Bench dated 06.04.2011 in W.A. No. 464 of 2011 and confirm the decision of the Selection Committee.

21) The civil appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

OCTOBER 19, 2012.
Union Of India & Ors vs Dinesh Prasad

2. The above question arises in this way. The respondent, Dinesh Prasad, joined the 11th Assam Rifles as washerman/rifleman in 1995. For the period between 26.07.1998 and 11.10.2000 (FN), he absented himself from unit unauthorisedly while in active service. On 03.08.2001, Col. A.S. Sehrawat, Commandant, under his signature served a charge sheet under Section 39(a) of the Army Act, 1950 (for short, ‘Army Act’) on the respondent for the absence without leave for 808 days. The Commandant constituted summary court- martial to try the respondent for the above charge. The respondent pleaded guilty to the charge before the summary court-martial. The summary court- martial, after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, passed an order on 04.08.2001 dismissing the respondent from service. The Reviewing Officer has confirmed the punishment of dismissal from the service awarded to the respondent.

3. The respondent challenged the punishment awarded to him by the summary court-martial in a writ petition before the Gauhati High Court. The respondent (petitioner therein) explained in the writ petition the reason for his absence. According to him, he lost his mental balance while in service and was suffering from mental depression. At the time of arguments before the Single Judge, it was submitted on his behalf that the very Commandant of the Battalion, who signed and issued the charge sheet to him, convened and presided over the summary court-martial and on conclusion of which the punishment of dismissal from service was imposed which vitiated the court-martial proceedings as he was denied a fair trial.

4. The learned Single Judge held that while issuing a charge sheet the Commandant tentatively made up his mind that there was some material against the delinquent and accordingly, after having issued charge sheet, Col. A.S. Sehrawat, who was Commandant of the Battalion, ought not to have convened the court-martial and in any event ought not to have conducted the proceedings of the court- martial leading to the punishment of dismissal from the service. The Single Judge held that in the facts of the case, the proceedings of the summary court-martial held against the delinquent were vitiated on account of likelihood of bias. By the judgment and order dated 07.09.2006, the Single Judge allowed the writ petition and set aside the respondent’s dismissal from service. It was observed, however, that it would be open for the concerned authority to proceed in the matter afresh in accordance with law, if it so desired.

23. Civil appeal is allowed. The judgment and order of the Single Judge dated 7.09.2006 and the order of the Division Bench dated 28.08.2008 are set aside. No order as to costs.
Sathya Narayanan vs State Tr.Insp.Of Police

2) Brief facts:

Commotion in the Ashram

Sudha (PW-8) servant maid was told not to report for work in the afternoon:

2 asked her not to come for work in the afternoon, therefore, on his instruction, she did not go for work in the afternoon. The fact that PW-8, who used to help the devotees all the time was asked not to attend in the afternoon in the month of April, 2000 is also one of the circumstance which supports the prosecution case.

PWs 35 and 36 brother and sister of the deceased were not informed about the death of the deceased:

Motive:

NOVEMBER 2, 2012.
Rohitash Kumar & Ors vs Om Prakash Sharma & Ors

B. The Union of India – respondent no.2, issued a seniority list dated 18.7.1995, placing respondent no. 1 at Serial No. 1863, below all the officers of Batch No.17 and thereafter, a final seniority list of Assistant Commandants was published on 5.7.1996. C. Respondent no.1 challenged the said seniority list in which he was ranked below the officers of Batch No. 17, by filing Writ Petition No. 1393 of 1999, on the ground that with effect from 15.3.1993, he stood promoted as Assistant Commandant, and that he had also completed all requisite training for the same at the B.S.F. Academy, Tekanpur, which had commenced on 1.2.1993. There was another batch that undertook training on 2.7.1993. However, the said officers of the second batch, who had joined such training on 2.7.1993, could not be ranked higher than him, in the seniority list.

24. In view of the above, it becomes crystal clear that, under the garb of interpreting the provision, the Court does not have the power to add or subtract even a single word, as it would not amount to interpretation, but legislation.

25. The matter requires to be considered in the light of the aforesaid settled legal propositions.

28. If the contention of the appellants is accepted, it would amount to fixing their seniority from a date prior, to their birth in the cadre. Admittedly, the appellants (17th batch), joined training on 2.7.1993 and their claim is to fix their seniority from the Ist of February, 1993 i.e. the date on which, the 16th batch joined training. Such a course is not permissible in law.

30. Thus, in view of the above, the appeals lack merit and therefore, are accordingly dismissed.
Satbir Singh vs Chief Of The Army Staff,New Delhi&Anr

4) Brief facts:

(a) The appellant herein was enrolled in the Army on 31.08.1982. In September, 1985, he was promoted to the rank of Lance Naik and in April, 1986, he was promoted to the rank of Naik. On 14.02.1990, he got further promotion to the rank of Havildar and with the said promotion, his tenure of service was extended to 24 years and his date of superannuation also got extended to 31.08.2006.

(b) The Army Headquarters, Adjutant General Branch issued a letter dated 28.12.1988, laying down the procedure for removal of undesirable and inefficient candidates by way of discharge/dismissal. Pursuant to the same, a show-cause notice dated 16.03.1995 was served upon the appellant as the particulars in the service record reveal 4 ‘Red Ink Entries’ in the service of 12 ½ (twelve and a half) years. On 21.03.1995, the appellant submitted his reply and on 01.04.1995, the appellant was discharged from service.

7) Since the issue in this appeal is very limited, as mentioned above, in view of narration of facts in the earlier part of our order, there is no need to traverse further factual details.

(c) Challenging the same, the appellant filed petition being Writ Petition (C) No. 3874 of 1995 before the High Court of Delhi and prayed for reinstatement of service with all consequential benefits. By impugned judgment dated 02.05.2008, the High Court set aside the order of discharge and directed the respondents to reinstate the appellant in service with no benefit of salary and other allowances for the “intervening period.”

(d) Feeling aggrieved by the said impugned judgment, the appellant filed review petition being Review Petition No. 244 of 2008. By impugned order dated 20.02.2009, the review petition was also dismissed.

NOVEMBER 09, 2012.
M/S. Nagarjuna Constn. Co.Ltd vs Government Of India & Anr

3. The appellant had executed various contracts which were in the nature of composite construction contracts. The appellant had paid Sales Tax/ VAT on those contracts under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957, Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 and other State enactments. Service tax was imposed on various services which had come into effect from different dates. Prior to 1.6.07, the appellant had paid service tax under the following categories of taxable services, namely:

25. In our opinion the High Court did not commit any mistake while upholding validity of the Impugned Circular.

30. The appellant has not challenged the validity of Rule 3 (3) of the 2007 Rules and, therefore, we do not go into the said issue. In our opinion, the Impugned Circular is not contrary to the Act or the statutory rules made thereunder and the Impugned Circular only provides guidelines as to how the provisions of Rule 3 (3) of the 2007 Rules are to be interpreted. Even if the Impugned Circular is set aside, the provisions of Rule 3 (3) of the 2007 Rules would remain and that would not benefit the appellant. In view of the above facts, we are of the view that the High Court did not commit any error while upholding the Impugned Circular and, therefore, we dismiss the appeal with no order as to costs.
Satbir Singh vs Chief Of The Army Staff,New Delhi&Anr.;

4) Brief facts:

(a) The appellant herein was enrolled in the Army on 31.08.1982. In September, 1985, he was promoted to the rank of Lance Naik and in April, 1986, he was promoted to the rank of Naik. On 14.02.1990, he got further promotion to the rank of Havildar and with the said promotion, his tenure of service was extended to 24 years and his date of superannuation also got extended to 31.08.2006.

(b) The Army Headquarters, Adjutant General Branch issued a letter dated 28.12.1988, laying down the procedure for removal of undesirable and inefficient candidates by way of discharge/dismissal. Pursuant to the same, a show-cause notice dated 16.03.1995 was served upon the appellant as the particulars in the service record reveal 4 ‘Red Ink Entries’ in the service of 12 ½ (twelve and a half) years. On 21.03.1995, the appellant submitted his reply and on 01.04.1995, the appellant was discharged from service.

7) Since the issue in this appeal is very limited, as mentioned above, in view of narration of facts in the earlier part of our order, there is no need to traverse further factual details.

(c) Challenging the same, the appellant filed petition being Writ Petition (C) No. 3874 of 1995 before the High Court of Delhi and prayed for reinstatement of service with all consequential benefits. By impugned judgment dated 02.05.2008, the High Court set aside the order of discharge and directed the respondents to reinstate the appellant in service with no benefit of salary and other allowances for the “intervening period.”

(d) Feeling aggrieved by the said impugned judgment, the appellant filed review petition being Review Petition No. 244 of 2008. By impugned order dated 20.02.2009, the review petition was also dismissed.

NOVEMBER 09, 2012.
National Ins.Co.Ltd vs Balakrishnan & Anr

2. The singular issue that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the first respondent, the Managing Director of the respondent No. 2, a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, is entitled to sustain a claim against the appellant-insurer for having sustained bodily injuries. Succinctly stated, the facts are that the respondent No. 1 met with an accident about 8.30 p.m. on 23.3.2001 while travelling in the Lancer car bearing registration No. TN 49 K 2750 belonging to the respondent No. 2, as it dashed against a bullock cart near Muthandipatti Pirivu Road-I. He knocked at the doors of the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (for short “the the tribunal”) in MACOP No. 357 of 2004 under Sections 140, 147 and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity “the Act”) claiming compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- jointly and severally from the appellant as well as the company on the foundation that the vehicle in question was insured with the appellant-company. Be it noted, the amount was calculated on the basis of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages.

4. The tribunal, in its award dated 19.4.2007, addressed to the issues of rash and negligent driving of the driver, injuries sustained by the insured and the liability of the insurance company. On the basis of the material brought on record, it came to hold that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the 1st respondent; that the claimant was injured in the accident; that regard being had to the injuries sustained he was entitled to get Rs.8,63,200/- as compensation with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of deposit; and that the insurance company was liable to indemnify as the owner of the vehicle was the company, and the injured was travelling in the car as a third party.

The above circulars make it clear that the insured liability in respect of occupant(s) carried in a private car and pillion rider carried on two-wheeler is covered under the Standard Motor Package Policy. A copy each of the above circulars is enclosed for ready reference.

Sd/-

(Prabodh Chander) Executive Director” [emphasis supplied]

Sd/-

(Prabodh Chander) Executive Director” [emphasis added]

23. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we think it apposite to set aside the finding of the High Court and the tribunal as regards the liability of the insurer and remit the matter to the tribunal to scrutinize the policy in a proper perspective and, if necessary, by taking additional evidence and if the conclusion is arrived at that the policy in question is a “Comprehensive/Package Policy”, the liability would be fastened on the insurer. As far as other findings recorded by the tribunal and affirmed by the High Court are concerned, they remain undisturbed.

24. Consequently, the appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above and the matter is remitted to the tribunal for the purpose of adjudication as directed hereinabove. There shall be no order as to costs.

November 20, 2012.
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd vs Surendra Nath Loomba And Ors

2. The facts which are requisite to be stated are that on 9.10.1998 about 4.30 a.m. claimant, Surendra Nath Loomba, was travelling in a Maruti Esteem Car bearing Registration No. DL 8C-5096 belonging to the respondent No. 3, Savita Matta, and driven by the respondent No. 2, Raj Loomba, the son of the claimant. Near the President Body-guard House, Rajpur Road, the vehicle dashed against a tree and in the accident the windscreen (front) of car was smashed and its pieces got inserted into the eyes of the claimant as a consequence of which he lost his both eyes. As set forth, at the time of the accident the claimant was working as a Senior Manager in Punjab National Bank and his gross salary was Rs.18,949.86 per month and various perquisites were also attached to the service. Keeping in view his salary and other perquisites he filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the tribunal putting forth a claim of Rs.62,00,000/- with 18% interest as compensation.

3. The respondent No. 2, Raj Loomba, filed his written statement contending, inter alia, that at the time of accident the vehicle was insured with the Oriental Insurance Company Limited and hence, it being the insurer was liable to pay the compensation.

4. The insurance company resisted the claim of the claimant on the ground that the driver of the vehicle did not have a valid driving licence; that the proceedings had been initiated in a collusive manner; and that even if the accident as well as the injuries were proven the insurer was not liable to indemnify the owner as the claimant was travelling as a gratuitous passenger.

6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid award the insurance company preferred A.O. No. 201 of 2003 and the injured claimant preferred A.O. No. 284 of 2003 before the High Court. The High Court, by the common impugned order, reduced the amount of compensation to Rs.16,42,656/- and concurred with the conclusion arrived at by the tribunal as regards the liability. Thus, the appeal preferred by the insurance company was allowed in part and the appeal preferred by the claimant was dismissed. Hence, the present batch of appeals by the insurance company as well as by the claimant.

15. It needs no special emphasis to state that whether the insurer would be liable or not would depend upon the nature of the policy when it is brought on record in a manner as required by law.

17. In the result, the appeals preferred by the insurer, namely, Oriental Insurance Company Limited are allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove and to that extent the award is set aside and the matter is remitted to the tribunal and the appeals preferred by the claimant for enhancement of compensation are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.