L-NLProc/TathyaNyaya-and-FactLegalLlama-NyayaScrape-Datasets huggingface dataset:
Jaswantsingh Pratapsingh Jadeja vs Rajkot Municipal Corporation & Anr

4. Cause was shown by him. The same having been found to be unsatisfactory was rejected. No departmental enquiry was conducted. A finding of fact was arrived at to the effect that the enquiry proceedings which were pending against him were not brought to its logical end. His period of probation was extended upto 30.4.2003 without assigning any reason. There was no such power in the appointing authority. His services, however, were discharged stating :

5. He filed a writ petition which was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the Gujarat High Court by an order dated 9.12.2004. He preferred an intra-court appeal thereagainst. The said appeal has also been dismissed by reason of the impugned order.

15. Such a jurisdictional fact had not been taken into consideration by the appropriate authority. Presumably, keeping in view the aforementioned provision, his probation period had not been extended after 31.2.2003. The nature and character of the order, therefore, must be considered having regard to the aforementioned statutory provision.

28. For reasons aforementioned, the impugned order is set aside. The appeal is allowed. There shall, however, be no orders as to costs.
Mohannakumaran Nair vs Vijayakumaran Nair

2. Appellant is said to have borrowed a sum of Rs.6,02,000/- (Rupees Six Lacs Two Thousand Only) from the respondent. The said transaction was carried out at Saudi Arabia. Appellant executed a promissory note on 8.5.1999. Admittedly, the parties were residing at Saudi Arabia at the relevant time. No part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Attingal. Respondent herein filed a suit for recovery of the aforementioned amount in the Subordinate Court at Attingal. Although both the parties were residing in Saudi Arabia, Plaintiff filed a suit in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Attingal for recovery of the said amount sometime in the year 2002. Appellant having been summoned, appeared in the suit. He, inter alia, raised an issue of lack of territorial jurisdiction on the part of the said court to entertain the suit. By an Order dated 15.3.2005, the application of the appellant was dismissed by the Ld. Trial Judge holding:

15. Respondent, therefore, in our opinion cannot be permitted to raise the said plea before us for the first time.

17. He, at the material time, had been residing in Saudi Arabia.

19. For the reasons aforementioned, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained which is set aside accordingly. The appeal is allowed. But, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
G.M. Tanda Thermal Power Project vs Jai Prakash Srivastava & Anr

2. The State of Uttar Pradesh acquired land for the appellant company. Various land acquisition proceedings therefor were initiated. The Special Land Acuqisition Officer, the acquiring authority, expressed its intention to engage some daily wagers to look after the pending acquisition cases and asked the appellant to meet the said expenses or depute one of its staff for the said purpose. Appellant agreed to the proposal of the Special Land Acquisition Officer that a person on daily wages may be appointed on an ad hoc basis. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, inter alia, engaged three persons on daily wages. Their wages were paid from the fund provided for by the appellant. Appointments of the said employees were for a temporary period and so long as their services were necessary for the purpose of looking after the land acquisition cases, services of the said employees were necessary for the period 1.5.1981 to 6.3.1982.

14. For the reasons aforementioned, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained. The same is set aside accordingly. Appeal is allowed. As nobody has appeared on behalf of the first respondent, there shall be no order as to costs.
Managing Director, Karnataka Forest ... vs Workmen Of Karnataka Pulpwood Ltd. & Ors

6. Yet again, a Government order was issued on 02.01.2004 directing :

2) Arrears of differential salary on account of release of increments and D.A. be released to the employees at an early date.

Action : Managing Director, KFDC Ltd. and Principal Secretary, FEE All the officers present in the meeting assured their full co-operation in solving these issues in a time bound manner.

18. The right of the workmen, therefore, was only to receive the amount of compensation. If the State is not in a position to take upon itself the financial burden of the appellant-Corporation for appointing the concerned workmen; direction to continue their services could not be issued. There cannot be any doubt whatsoever that the said order dated 24.10.1991 has been superseded by necessary implication. Both merger of two undertakings and the closure of one undertaking do not stand together. If the workmen, therefore, think that any other or further right has accrued to them in terms of the purported assurance given by the State, it may take recourse thereto before an appropriate forum but a writ petition was not maintainable.

19. For the foregoing reasons, we are of the opinion that impugned judgment cannot be sustained. It is set aside accordingly. The appeals are allowed. No costs.
Administrator, Unit Trust Of India vs B.M. Malani & Ors

? Scheme shall be listed on the whole sale debt segment of the NSE within six months from the closure of subscription.

4. Appellant received a notice from the Income Tax Department purported to be under sub-section (3) of Section 226 of the Income Tax Act. In compliance of the demand made therein, a sum of Rs.43,69,083.30 p. was paid to the Department by the appellant wherefor, the value of the unit at the relevant time was calculated at the rate of Rs.6.93 p. per unit.

6. Admittedly, although the units were transferred, their value had not become due to the assessee on the date on which such notice was given. It was held by the High Court that the respondent was entitled to the redemption value of the units at the rate of Rs.10/- per unit after five years.

23. We, therefore, do not find any error in the judgment of the High Court as the respondent is entitled to be restituted. We are of the opinion, that the respondent was also entitled to dividend declared during the said period viz. from the date of allotment. The High Court was not correct in not considering that aspect of the matter.

24. For the reasons aforementioned, the appeal filed by the Administrator, Unit Trust of India is dismissed and the appeal filed by B.M. Malani is allowed with costs. Counsels fee assessed at Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only).
G.M. Tanda Thermal Power Project vs Jai Prakash Srivastava And Anr

2. The State of Uttar Pradesh acquired land for the appellant company. Various land acquisition proceedings therefor were initiated. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, the acquiring authority, expressed its intention to engage some daily wagers to look after the pending acquisition cases and asked the appellant to meet the said expenses or depute one of its staff for the said purpose. Appellant agreed to the proposal of the Special Land Acquisition Officer that a person on daily wages may be appointed on an ad hoc basis. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, inter alia, engaged three persons on daily wages. Their wages were paid from the fund provided for by the appellant. Appointments of the said employees were for a temporary period and so long as their services were necessary for the purpose of looking after the land acquisition cases, services of the said employees were necessary for the period 1.5.1981 to 6.3.1982.

14. For the reasons aforementioned, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained. The same is set aside accordingly. Appeal is allowed. As nobody has appeared on behalf of the first respondent, there shall be no order as to costs.
National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Cholleti Bharatamma & Ors

J U D G M E N T (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.7237-7239 of 2003) [With CA Nos. 4848-4850, 4852-4854 of 2007 arising out of SLP (C) Nos.7241-7243, 7248 and 7288-7290 of 2003] S.B. Sinha, J.

14. Following the aforementioned principles, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained which is set aside. The appeals are allowed accordingly. CA @ SLP (C) No.7241-7243/03

19. For the reasons aforementioned, this appeal is dismissed.

24. In the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the opinion that the contention of the respondent should be accepted. This appeal is, thus, dismissed.

CA @ SLP (C) Nos.7288-7290/03

27. The Tribunal, therefore, correctly recorded that according to PW-2, he was travelling with his goods as owner thereof and not the deceased.

31. In view of the nature of evidence available before us, we have no other option but to set aside the judgment. These appeals are, therefore, allowed accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs in each case.
John K. John vs Tom Varghese & Anr

Indisputably, a suit for realization of the said amount was filed by the appellant against the respondent in the Court of the Subordinate Court, Kottayam which was marked as O.S. No. 1 of 2000. Another suit being O.S. No. 168 of 2000 was instituted before the Munsiff Court, Changancherry claiming a sum of Rs. 55,900/-. Respondent, apart from the aforementioned two chitties, was a subscriber to another chitty for a sum of Rs. 50,000/-. It was not prized by the respondent. On an allegation that the respondent along with three others had borrowed a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- from him on 26.03.1998 wherefor he executed a demand promissory note and as despite demand, the said amount was not paid to him, the appellant instituted another suit being O.S. No. 362 of 1999 in the Subordinate Court, Kottayam for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- with interest.

7. Before the learned Trial Judge, the respondent examined two witnesses who proved the aforementioned fact. The learned Trial Judge, in its judgment, took notice of the pendency of the several civil litigations by and between the parties hereto. It, however, proceeded on the basis that as admittedly cheques have been issued by the respondent which on presentation were not honoured, he committed an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short the Act). The said findings of the learned Trial Judge was upheld in appeal by Shri K. Ramakrishnan, learned Additional Sessions Judge by a judgment and order dated 17.03.2004.

11. It is now a well-settled principle of law that this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India would ordinarily not interfere with the judgment of acquittal, if two views are possible.

12. For the reasons aforementioned, there is no merit in these appeals which are dismissed accordingly.
Savithri & Ors vs Karthyayani Amma & Ors

Appellants herein are wife, son and daughters of Madhavan Nair son of Sankaran Nair (Plaintiff). Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein (Original Defendant Nos. 1 and 2) and Respondent Nos. 3 to 8 herein (Original Defendant Nos. 3 to 8) are children and grandchildren respectively of Nanikutty Amma (sister of Sankaran Nair). Sankaran Nair died in 1978. Indisputably, the relationship between Sankaran Nair and his wife was strained. They were living separately. Sankaran Nair had been living with his sister and her children. They were looking after him. He was suffering from cancer. Respondents herein were bearing all costs for his treatment.

Therefore, whenever there is any suspicious circumstance, the obligation is cast on the propounder of the Will to dispel the suspicious circumstance. As in the facts and circumstances of the case, the court of appeal below did not accept the valid execution of the Will by indicating reasons and coming to a specific finding that suspicion had not been dispelled to the satisfaction of the Court and such finding of the court of appeal below has also been upheld by the High Court by the impugned judgment, we do not find any reason to interfere with such decision. This appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed without any order as to costs.

24. For the reasons aforementioned, we do not find any legal infirmity in the judgment of the High Court. The appeal is dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
All Cargo Movers (I) Pvt. Ltd. & Ors vs Dhanesh Badarmal Jain & Anr

2. The parties hereto entered into a contract of carriage. First Respondent approached the appellants which are companies registered and incorporated under the Indian Companies Act for delivery of six consignments valued at US $ 98,715.29 to the original consignee, M/s. Universal Apparels (EPZ), Mombassa, Kenya. By reason of a fax message, Appellants asked their counterparts in Mombassa, Kenya (Walford Meadows) to confirm delivery of consignment asking it to see that the cargo is delivered only against presentation of original Bills of Lading. The goods in question were said to have been delivered by the agent of the petitioner to the original consignee but the same allegedly was rejected on the ground of being inferior in quality. Goods are said to have been delivered to M/s. Fashionette Industries Ltd. Complainant-Respondent issued a notice to the accused persons as also the aforementioned Walford Meadows and M/s. Universal Apparels stating :

7. A copy of the said fax message was sent to the appellant herein stating:

15. An application for quashing of the order issuing summons to the appellant by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate has been dismissed by the High Court of Gujarat by reason of the impugned judgment dated 19.1.2007 holding :

22. For the reasons aforementioned, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained. It is set aside accordingly. Appeal is allowed and the order taking cognizance against the appellant is set aside.
Marripati Nagaraja & Ors vs The Government Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors

2. Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission, on the advice of the State of Andhra Pradesh, issued a notification on or about 1.10.1992 inviting applications for recruitment to various posts including 34 posts in the category of Assistant Director of Agriculture in the Andhra Pradesh Agricultural Service. Although in the said notification stipulations were made in respect of grant of reservation for women to the extent of 30%, no such stipulation was made in respect of the vacancies in the category of Assistant Director of Agriculture. This appeal involves the question of reservation of women in the said category.

4. Several original applications were filed before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunals claiming different reliefs and on different grounds. Appellant herein filed an original application which was registered as OA No.6451 of 1992 questioning the carry forward of vacancies from the year 1976; the omission to make zonal reservation; prescription of minimum and maximum age limits by way of eligibility criteria as a result whereof, allegedly, some of the agricultural officers were deprived of their right to apply for the posts. Indisputably, interim orders were passed in January 1993 by the Tribunal which remained in force till the disposal of the said original applications.

5. The State of Andhra Pradesh issued GOMs No.928 G.A.D. on or about 6.10.1995 providing for reservations of women candidates to the extent of 30% in the matter of direct recruitment with retrospective effect from 2.1.1984. By reason of another Notification issued on 28.5.1996, the percentage of reservation for women was increased to 331/3%. Original Applications filed by the petitioners as also those of other employees were dismissed by the Tribunal on 23.11.1998.

6. An application filed by the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission to short-list the candidates was allowed by the Tribunal by an order dated 14.11.2000 by holding a fresh screening test for the 510 candidates who had appeared therein on 27.12.1992 and to finalise the result. A Notification for conducting a fresh screening test was issued on 12.12.2000 pursuant whereto a second screening test was conducted on 7.1.2001. Appellant, although appeared, did not pass the said test.

9. Writ petition filed by the appellants questioning the same was dismissed. A writ application was also filed by the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission challenging the decision of the Tribunal restricting reservation for women to 30% instead of 331/3%. By reason of the impugned judgment both the writ petitions have been dismissed.

15. For the reasons aforementioned, the appeals of the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission are allowed and that of Marripati Nagaraja is dismissed with costs. Counsels fee quantified at Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only).

16. The Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission is hereby directed to finalise the selection process in the light of the judgment of this Court as expeditiously as possible and not later than three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Niyamat Ali Molla vs Sonargon Housing Co-Operative Society ...

2. Respondent No.1 filed a suit for declaration and possession as also for damages in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Baruipur, 24- Parganas (South) in the State of West Bengal. An ex-parte decree was passed against the appellant herein who was arrayed as defendant No.6 in the suit. In the plaint, the suit property was described as under :

4. A decree was passed wherein again the same Schedule of Property was described as the property involved in the suit. It was directed:

6. An application for amendment of the plaint as also of the decree containing the Schedule describing the said property was, however, filed on 27.6.2000, inter alia, stating :

22. We, with respect, agree with the aforenoticed view.

28. This appeal and the application for impleadment are dismissed accordingly. It would, however, for the Executing Court to consider at the time of execution of the decree to ascertain whether there exists any difficulty in executing the decree or not. In the facts and circumstances of the case, however, there shall be no order as to costs.
Devinder Singh & Others vs State Of Punjab & Others

The Agriculturist/Farmer is entirely dependent on his land for his livelihood. There are various projects in the name of Escorts Tractors, Mohindra Tractors, Massy Furgon Tractors and so many other tractors companies/industries fulfilling the needs of the public and as such there is no need at all of the proposed industry to be set up in the lands of the objectors.

4. Indisputably, a declaration was issued in terms of Section 6 of the Act and an agreement was entered into by and between the Company and the State on 27.02.2003.

48. The lands in question are recorded as Shahi lands. It is not in dispute that they are agricultural lands. The Act contemplates that such lands may not be acquired.

55. For the reasons aforementioned, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained, which is set aside accordingly. The appeals are allowed with costs. Counsels fee assessed at Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only).
M/S. United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs Davinder Singh

5. An appeal preferred thereagainst was also dismissed by the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission. A revision application filed before the National Commission met with the same result.

cab, medium goods vehicle, medium passenger motor vehicle, motor-cab, motorcycle, omnibus, private service vehicle, semi-trailer, tourist vehicle, tractor, trailer and transport vehicle *** *** ***

15. In view of the aforementioned authoritative pronouncements, we are of the opinion that the court below committed an error in holding the appellant liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle in regard to losses sustained by him.

17. For the reasons aforementioned, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained which is set aside accordingly. The appeal is allowed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
R. Radhakrishnan vs The Director General Of Police And ...

4. It now stands admitted that he, however, was involved in an incident which occurred on 15.04.2000, and was proceeded against under Section 294(b) of the Indian Penal Code. He was arrested but was released on bail. He, however, was acquitted of the said charge on 25.09.2000. Inter alia on the premise that he had made false statement in his verification roll, in regard to the pendency of the aforementioned case, he was not selected.

13. In the instant case, indisputably, the appellant had suppressed a material fact. In a case of this nature, we are of the opinion that question of exercising an equitable jurisdiction in his favour would not arise.

14. For the reasons aforementioned, there is no merit in these appeals which are dismissed accordingly. However, in the facts and circumstances of this case, there shall be no order as to costs.
R.S. Jayakumar & Ors vs State Of Kerala & Ors

4. The last date for receipt of application was 26th July , 2007. The number of vacancies were notified as 5 (provisionally) subject to change according to the allotment of seats by the Government of India. The petitioners/appellants (herein) applied for the course along with other candidates who were on probation and were not approved probationers/full members of the service. A certificate was given by the Controlling Authority in favour of the candidates that they were approved probationers (though they were not). The select list of 34 candidates prepared by the KPSC included ineligible candidates who were probationers and not approved probations or full members of service. As a result, the appellants who were approved probationers could not be selected for the vacancies notified for the course 2001-2003 and other persons who were probationers were selected. Therefore, this action was challenged by filing a separate writ petition by the appellants and others. A counter affidavit was filed in the main writ petition No. 33355/2000 by the State and State accepted the contention of the appellants herein and stated that the selection and inclusion of the contesting respondents in the select list was not legal or justified. The KPSC also attempted to justify its list stating that the inclusion of these candidates were on the basis of the certificate issued by the Controlling Authority. Learned Single Judge after hearing both the parties dismissed the writ petition and held that it is only for the purpose of sending the selected candidates for training and not for promotion or appointment. The Division Bench affirmed the order of the learned Single Judge . Hence the present appeals.

The stands of examination in the above subjects will be of Intermediate of Science or equivalent. xxxxx The minimum marks to be obtained for each paper is 40%.

21. All the appeals are accordingly allowed with no order as to costs.