L-NLProc/TathyaNyaya-and-FactLegalLlama-NyayaScrape-Datasets huggingface dataset:
Damodar Lal vs Sohan Devi And Ors

The facts unfold the plight of a poor landlord languishing in courts for over fourty years. The case gets sadder when we note that appellant had been successful both in the trial court and the first appellate court and the saddest part is that the High Court in second appeal, went against him on a pure question of fact! Issue number-3 framed in Civil Regular Suit No. 191 of 1974 for eviction on the ground of unauthorised construction/material alteration, decided on 21.12.1989 in the Court of Munsiff, Bhilwara, Rajasthan, reads as follows:

We do not propose to discuss other judgments, though there is plethora of settled case law on this issue. Suffice to say that the approach made by the High Court has been wholly wrong, if not, perverse. It should not have interfered with concurrent findings of the trial court and first appellate court on a pure question of fact. Their inference on facts is certainly reasonable. The strained effort made by the High Court in second appeal to arrive at a different finding is wholly unwarranted apart from being impermissible under law. Therefore, we have no hesitation to allow the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and restore that of the trial court as confirmed by the appellate court.

The appeal is allowed as above with costs quantified at Rs.25,000/-.

...................CJI.

(T. S. Thakur) ......................J. (Kurian Joseph) New Delhi;

January 5, 2016
Kuldeep Kumar Pathak vs State Of Up And Ors

2. The appellant herein appeared in the Intermediate Examination conducted by Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, U.P., Allahabad in the year 2002 and successfully cleared the said examination. On that basis, he pursued the Graduation and passed Bachelor of Arts (B.A.) in the year 2005. Thereafter, he even successfully completed his Post-Graduation course i.e. Masters of Arts (M.A.) in the year 2007 with a desire to pursue further studies. He even joined LL.B. course and successfully cleared LL.B. examinations also in the year 2011. He had the ambition to get himself enrolled as an Advocate so as to pursue the legal profession. However, before he could do that, respondent-authorities inflicted upon him a big blow in the form of canceling his intermediate results of the year 2002 which examination was conducted by Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, Allahabad. Order to this effect, without putting the appellant to any notice and without affording any opportunity of hearing, was passed nine years after the said exam with the direction to confiscate his Certificate. The effect of the aforesaid action of the respondent was not only take away the result of the Intermediate Examination, but it also nullified further courses which he had pursued and passed in the meantime.

3. The reason for canceling the said examination by the Regional Secretary, U.P. Board of High School and Intermediate Examination (hereinafter referred to as the 'U.P. Board'), Varanasi was that the appellant had simultaneously appeared in two examinations, one of the U.P. Board and other of Sanskrit Board with respect to Class X and equivalent examination and it was not permissible for the appellant to appear in two examinations conducted by two different Boards simultaneously.

4. The appellant, aggrieved by the aforesaid orders dated April 20, 2011 passed by the Regional Secretary, Intermediate Education Board, Varanasi (respondent No. 3), preferred a representation dated May 10, 2011 before the Director, Education (Secondary), Lucknow (respondent No. 2). This representation was also addressed to respondent No. 3. Request was made to both respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to allow him to present his case and give him an opportunity of hearing. However, nothing was heard on this representation and instead consequential orders dated May 18, 2011 were passed giving effect to earlier orders dated April 20, 2011, thereby confiscating the Certificates of Award in favour of the appellant.

9. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed with costs by quashing the aforesaid impugned orders and reversing the impugned judgment of the High Court. The appellant shall, accordingly, be entitled to all consequential benefits.

JANUARY 05 , 2016.
Commr.Of Income Tax-Xviii,Delhi vs Bank Of Nova Scotia

2. The matter was pursued by the Revenue before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal vide order dated 31.03.2006 entered the following findings:

3. Being aggrieved, the Revenue took up the matter before the High Court of Delhi against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The High Court rejected the appeal only on the ground that no substantial question of law arises in the matter.

4. On facts, we are convinced that there is no substantial question of law, the facts and law having properly and correctly been assessed and approached by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as well as by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. Thus, we see no merits in the appeal and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

January 07, 2016
Awadesh Kumar Jha @ Akhilesh Kumar Jha & ... vs The State Of Bihar

Brief facts of the case are stated hereunder to appreciate the rival legal contentions urged on behalf of the parties:-

The learned Single Judge of the High Court of Patna vide order dated 14.10.2014 dismissed the said petition holding that at present case is surviving against the appellants which has arisen out of the second FIR and the criminal proceedings arising out of first FIR has already been set aside. The learned Single Judge did not find any merit in the said petition filed before her and she accordingly dismissed the same with a direction to the Trial Court to conclude the trial expeditiously. Hence, this appeal with request to set aside the same and allow the application made under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. by the appellants seeking their discharge of the offences alleged in the second FIR.
Priyanka Chawla vs Amit Chawla

1. The appellant and respondent were duly married on 26th April, 2007. Unfortunately, after a couple of years, differences started between them which culminated in a decree of divorce granted by the Family Court, Ghaziabad on 20th September, 2014 in case No.765/2011, on the ground of cruelty.

2. The matter was pursued before the High Court of Ahallabad leading to the impugned judgment dated 09.09.2015. The High Court confirmed the decree of divorce. However, regarding the permanent alimony, despite the compromise said to have been entered between the parties for a total amount of Rs.36.50 lacs, the High Court reduced the amount to Rs.29.50 lacs.

6. It is agreed that in addition to the amount of Rs.21 lacs paid by the respondent/husband, a further amount of Rs.5 lacs will be paid within a period of six months.

9. Accordingly, these appeals are allowed in the following terms:-

11. No costs.

8TH JANUARY, 2016
M/S Sciemed Overseas Inc vs Boc India Limited & Ors

4. The Rajendra Institute of Medical Sciences, Ranchi, (for short “the RIMS”) issued a notice inviting tender on 10th February, 2007. The tender was for installation and supply of a complete system of Centralized Liquid Medical Oxygen with medical gas pipe line for Oxygen, Carbon Dioxide, Nitrous Oxide and compressed air, etc. The work was to be executed on a turnkey basis within 150 days in the 1000 bedded departments and wards of the RIMS.

5. Responses to the notice inviting tender were submitted by the petitioner (Sciemed Overseas) and respondent No.1 (BOC India). Their tenders were processed by the RIMS and a memorandum dated 25th June, 2007 was issued by its Director informing Sciemed and BOC regarding opening of the price bid of commercially and technically successful bidders.

7. The High Court considered the writ petition filed by BOC and by an order dated 31st July, 2007 the writ petition was disposed of giving liberty to BOC to file another representation in continuation of its earlier representation to the RIMS. It was directed that both the representations should be considered by the Director of the RIMS and an appropriate reasoned order be passed thereon.

11. By an order dated 10th September, 2007 the High Court dismissed the second writ petition filed by BOC holding that the question whether the work order had or had not been issued to Sciemed was a question of fact. That apart, BOC had also raised several other questions of fact. The High Court was of the opinion that since the factual controversies could not be adjudicated upon in its writ jurisdiction, there was no reason to entertain the writ petition and it was, accordingly, dismissed.

3. The petitioner is aggrieved by a judgment and order dated 22nd September, 2008 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Jharkhand in L.P.A. No. 212 of 2008 only to the extent of imposition of costs.[1] In our opinion, there is no merit in this petition and it deserves to be dismissed.

22. The High Court did not accept the apology given by the proprietor of Sciemed and, therefore, imposed costs of Rs.10 lakhs on Sciemed.

32. On the material before us and the material considered by the High Court, we are satisfied that the imposition of costs by the High Court was justified. We find no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order. The petition is dismissed.

33. However, we grant six weeks to the petitioner to make the deposit of costs as directed by the High Court with the Jharkhand Legal Services Authority (JHALSA). On the deposit being made, the JHALSA should forward the amount to BOC India. The matter should be listed in the High Court after eight weeks for compliance.

.....…………………….J (Madan B. Lokur) .....…………………….J (R.K. Agrawal) New Delhi;

January 11, 2016
Gail (India) Ltd vs Petroleum And Natural Gas Regulatory ...

6. Failing to resolve the disputes between ship or pay and reasonable endeavour basis, Respondent No.2 filed a complaint before the Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board (in short, "the Board") on 21.09.2013.

8. Aggrieved, the appellant took up the matter before the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (in short, "Appellate Authority"), leading to the impugned order dated 28.11.2014, by which the Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal in the following terms :-

11. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that unless the issue, which is formulated below, is addressed, the complaint filed by the second respondent before the Board should not have been disposed of. Therefore, we propose to frame the following issue and send the matter back to the Board :-

14. Having regard to the fact that the original complaint was filed in the year 2013, we direct the Board to dispose of the complaint within six months from today. We also grant liberty to the complainant, if so required, to make an application before the Board for an appropriate interim order after completion of the pleadings and in which case, the Board may dispose of the application within three months.

15. In that view of the matter, we set aside the impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority dated 28.11.2014 in Appeal No. 52 of 2014 as also the original order passed by the Board dated 26.12.2013 in Case No. 68 of 2013.

16. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and it will be open to both the parties to raise all available contentions before the Board at any stage.

17. With the above observations and directions, the Civil Appeal is disposed of with no order as to costs.

January 13, 2016.
State Of Gujarat & Anr vs Shree Ratnakar Enterprise

The facts in the present matter are as under:

(b) Thereafter, a proposal for setting up of Special Economic Zone at Mundra was taken up for consideration. The Central Government vide its order dated 24.05.2009 provided for setting up ofSpecial Economic Zone at Mundra. The notification in question pertained to lands including Survey No.141 of Village Mundra. The coastal lands required for the Special Economic Zone were surrendered by various persons to the Government in order to enable setting up of the Special Economic Zone.

(e) The decision of the Single Judge was challenged by filing Letters Patent Appeal No.218 of 2012 before the Division Bench of the High Court. During the pendency of this Appeal, an affidavit was filed on behalf of the appellant - State that no land was earmarked for salt production from Survey No.141 but over the years lands situated near coastal area were allotted to various applicants for salt production and that said lands were surrendered by said persons to the appellant - State after the demand for land for Mundra Special Economic Zone came up. The Division Bench by its judgment and order dated 08.01.2014 allowed the appeal. It was observed that there was no delay on part of the respondent as it was prosecuting the matter since the year 1992 and that the delay was actually on part of the appellant - State. The Division Bench further observed that since the respondent had applied in the year 1992 its priority ought to be maintained and that the Collector must ensure that the land for salt cultivation be allotted to the respondent from any survey number within a period of three months from the receipt of the order.

7. In the circumstances this appeal is allowed. The judgment and order of the Division Bench of the High Court is set-aside and that was passed by the Single Judge of the High Court is restored. Application for directions preferred by the respondent after conclusion of hearing is rejected. No order as to costs.

………………………J. (V. Gopala Gowda) ………………..……J. (Uday Umesh Lalit) New Delhi, January 19, 2016 ITEM NO.1C.- For Judgment COURT NO.10 SECTION IX S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS C.A. No.360/2016 @ Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).

Date : 19/01/2016 This appeal was called on for pronouncement of JUDGMENT today.

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Uday Umesh Lalit pronounced the judgement of the Bench comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice V. Gopala Gowda and His Lordship.

Delay condoned.

Leave granted.

The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed non-reportable judgment.

Pending application(s), if any,stand(s) disposed of.

(Signed Non-Reportable Judgment is placed on the file)
National Highways Authority Of India vs M/S Ncc Knr Jv

2. Soon thereafter Interlocutory Application No.3 of 2015 was filed on behalf of the respondent, which was disposed of by this Court by its order dated 8.5.2015, which order was to the following effect:-

3. Accordingly, the respondent made over the amount in question within the time stipulated under the order dated 08.05.2015. Interlocutory Application No.4 of 2015 was thereafter preferred by the appellant contending that the decretal amount was withdrawn by the respondent in December 2012 whereas the appeal was allowed in favour of the appellant on 24.4.2015 and that the respondent had reaped the benefits of decretal amount for more than three years. It was submitted that the Arbitral Tribunal had awarded interest @ 12% per annum against the appellant and that the respondent be directed to pay interest @ 12% per annum on the amount of Rs.70,65,039/- from the date of withdrawal till the date of actual payment.

We therefore, direct that the respondent shall pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the amount in question namely Rs.70,65,039/- from the date of withdrawal till the amount was made over by the respondent to the appellant. Such payment shall be made within six weeks from today. Interlocutory Application Nos.4 and 5 stand disposed of accordingly.

……………………….J (Dipak Misra) ..………………………J. (Uday Umesh Lalit) New Delhi January 19, 2016 ITEM NO.1A-For Order COURT NO.10 SECTION XIV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS I.A. 4 & 5 in Civil Appeal No(s). 6158/2013 NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA Appellant(s) VERSUS M/S NCC KNR JV Respondent(s) Date : 19/01/2016 These applications were called on for pronouncement of ORDER today.

For Appellant(s) Mr. T.S. Sidhu, Adv.

Ms. Gunjan S. Jain, Adv.

Mr. Vivek Oriel, Adv.

Mr. Vikas Soni, Adv.

For M/s. M. V. Kini & Associates For Respondent(s) Mr. R. Sathish,Adv.

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Uday Umesh Lalit pronounced the order of the Bench comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dipak Misra and His Lordship.

I.A. Nos. 4 and 5 are disposed of in terms of the signed non- reportable order.

Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.

(Signed Non-Reportable order is placed on the file)
Eastern Coalfields Ltd vs Misri Yadav & Ors

(3) Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against respondent No.1 culminating in his dismissal from service as per order dated 10th April, 1982. The Industrial Tribunal while holding that the punishment of reduction of two increments will be sufficient for the misconduct, directed reinstatement of the workman with 50% back wages from the date of his dismissal till his reinstatement. This order was challenged by the appellant before the High Court. The learned Single Judge of the High Court upheld the order and dismissed the Writ Petition No.13256 of 2006 vide order dated 7th December, 2006. In appeal, the Division Bench of the High Court took the view that the direction for reinstatement was in order whereas the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to substitute the punishment of dismissal with the stoppage of two increments and therefore the appellant was given liberty to pass fresh orders on any punishment other than dismissal.

(6) The appeal is disposed of with no order as to costs.
The Manager Vknm Vocational Higher ... vs The State Of Kerala & Ors. Etc

The brief facts which are required to be noted are that the 5th respondent worked in the appellant’s school in 3 different spells between 01.10.1997 and 11.03.1998 for a total period of two months and 19 days. Subsequently, when the post of High School Assistant in social science fell vacant in the year 2010 consequent to the retirement of a teacher, the 6th respondent came to be appointed on 01.06.2010 afresh. The 5th respondent challenged the appointment of the 6th respondent by relying upon a rule which provided for preferential appointment to some categories of qualified teachers who had the fortune of working earlier in the school. The appellant rejected the claim of the 5th respondent by relying upon a Division Bench decision of the Kerala High Court. Aggrieved by the order of the appellant dated 18.09.2010, the 5th respondent approached the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent by its order dated 31.03.2011 rejected her claim. The 5th respondent filed a revision before the 1st respondent and the 1st respondent by order dated 26.11.2011 directed the 4th respondent, the District Education Officer to issue necessary formal orders appointing the 5th respondent as high school assistant in the appellant school w.e.f. 01.06.2010. The appellant challenged the order of the 1st respondent by filing a writ petition in W.P.(C) No.32734/2011 before the High Court of Kerala contending that the 5th respondent would not come within the preferential Rule, namely, Rule 51A and consequently the order of the 1st respondent cannot be sustained. The 5th respondent filed a writ petition in W.P. (C) No.2808/2012 for implementing the order of the 1st respondent dated 26.11.2011. The writ petition of the appellant, the 5th respondent and another writ petition in Writ Petition No.24773/2009 filed by another claimant also relying upon Rule 51A were tagged together for hearing.

In view of the foregoing discussions and our answer as noted above, W.P.(C) No. 24773 of 2009 as well as W.P.(C) No. 32734 of 2011 are dismissed. W.P.(C) No. 2808 of 2012 is allowed and a direction is issued to the respondent management to issue appointment order to the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 2808 of 2012, if not already issued, within thirty days from today. The parties shall bear their own costs.” It is also necessary to note the relevant Rules namely, Rule 7A both amended as well as unamended, Rule 49 and relevant part of Rule 51A both prior to its amendment and after its amendment and Rule 52 which are as under:

24. We are, therefore, inclined to allow these appeals and set aside the judgment of the Division Bench with the following directions:

The appeals stand allowed. The impugned judgment is set aside. The order of the 1st respondent dated 26.11.2011 is also set aside. The appointment of the 6th respondent stands restored and there will be no order as to cost.

January 27, 2016
Jivana Devi Yogendra Nath Adhar & Anr vs Vimal Kumar Dayaram Makane(Roy) & Anr

2. The appellants approached the High Court of Judicature at Mumbai, aggrieved by an order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Court No. 2, Nasik dated 07.12.2010 directing them to hand over the custody of the child borne to the first respondent. That order was affirmed by the High Court by the impugned order dated 25.08.2011.

5. With the above directions, the appeal is disposed of.

ITEM NO.26 COURT NO.12 SECTION IIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 1715/2012 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 25/08/2011 in CRLA No. 74/2011 passed by the High Court Of Bombay) JIVANA DEVI YOGENDRA NATH ADHAR & ANR Petitioner(s) VERSUS VIMAL KUMAR DAYARAM MAKANE(ROY) & ANR Respondent(s) (with office report) Date : 27/01/2016 This petition was called on for hearing today.

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH For Petitioner(s) Mr. D. K. Thakur, Adv.

Mr. D. Jha, Adv.

Mr. Lalan Chowdhry, Adv.

Mr. Sushil Kumar, Adv.

Mr. Debasis Misra, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Ms. Damini Hajela, Adv.

The appeal is disposed of in terms of the signed non-reportable Judgment. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, are disposed of.

(Signed non-reportable Judgment is placed on the file)