L-NLProc/TathyaNyaya-and-FactLegalLlama-NyayaScrape-Datasets huggingface dataset:
C.M.Girish Babu vs Cbi, Cochin, High Court Of Kerala

4. The prosecution case is that while accused no.1 working as the Inspector of Central Excise, Air Cargo Complex, Trivandrum, demanded an amount of Rs.1,500/- as gratification from one Dayanandhan-PW10 and Prakash Kumar-PW2, who were the Senior Assistant and Manager respectively of M/s. Interfrieght Services Pvt. Ltd., Trivandrum as a motive or reward for giving clearance for a wet grinder booked by one P. S. Shine to be sent to Dubai.

8. The High Court upon re-appreciation of evidence came to the conclusion that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the charge against the appellant for the offence under Section 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the said Act. In this regard, the High Court found that there is nothing in the evidence of PW-11 - Natarajan, official witness, to arrive at any conclusion of appellant making any demand of gratification. PW-11 stated that from the conversation between the appellant and PW-10, he could heard the appellant asking "is it ready?" and PW-10 only nodding his head. It is for that reason the High Court recorded that the alleged demand by the appellant on 2.10.1999 is highly doubtful and is not proved beyond reasonable doubt. The High Court relied upon yet another circumstance creating a doubt as regards the demand of any gratification by the appellant as there is no mention of any such demand in Exhibit P-9 - post trap mahazar. The High Court accordingly acquitted the appellant of charges under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the said Act.

22. The prosecution failed in establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant received any gratification.

23. For the aforesaid reasons, we find it difficult to sustain the conviction of the appellant under Section 7 of the said Act. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant and the sentence imposed upon him is set aside.

24. The appeal is allowed.

25. The bail bonds executed by the appellant for release on bail pursuant to the order dated 04.02.2008 shall stand discharged.

February 24, 2009
Vadiraj Naggappa Vernekar (D) Th. Lrs vs Sharad Chand Prabhakar Gogate

3. The aforesaid question arises in respect of a suit filed by one Vadiraj Naggappa Vernekar and Smt. Mainabai Ranade, being Suit No. S.925 of 1990, before the learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court, seeking a declaration that the Letters of Administration obtained by one Sharadchandra Prabhakar Gogate th on 5 November, 1998, in respect of the estate of Dr. Sudha Gogate, was not binding on the plaintiffs or any of them and did not affect their right, title and interest in the suit property, being Flat no.402, situated in Amogh Vikram Cooperative Housing Society Ltd., Murari Ghag Marg, Prabhadevi, Bombay 400025. Vadiraj Naggappa Vernekar died during the pendency of the suit and his legal representatives were brought on record in his place. The appellant No.1, being the wife of the deceased, was made plaintiff no.1A and his sons and daughters were made plaintiff Nos.B, C and D respectively.

4. One Sadanand Sheshgiri Shet, who was alleged to be a witness to all the transactions relating to the said flat, was appointed as Constituted Attorney by the appellant and the other heirs of deceased Vadiraj Naggappa Vernekar and as required under Order 17 Rule 4 CPC, his evidence by way of an affidavit was filed before the learned Single Judge. While the evidence was still being recorded in the suit, the appellant and the other plaintiffs moved Notice of Motion No.463 of 2006 th before the learned Single Judge on 13 February, 2006, urging that certain facts which were necessary for proper adjudication of the suit had inadvertently been left out in the affidavit affirmed by Sadanand Shet and that it was, therefore, necessary to recall him for further examination-in-chief under the provisions of Order 18 Rule 17 th CPC. By order dated 7 July, 2006, the learned Single Judge dismissed the said Motion upon holding that the witness could not be recalled to fill up the lacuna in his examination-in-chief on affidavit. Appeal No.853 of 2006 filed by the appellant herein st was dismissed in limine by the Division Bench of the High Court on 1 December, 2006, confirming the order of the learned Single Judge. The present appeal, by st leave, has been filed against the order of the Appeal Court dated 1 December, 2006.

18. We, accordingly, have no hesitation in dismissing the appeal, but without any order as to costs. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
M/S. Atul Commodities Pvt. Ltd. & Ors vs Commr. Of Customs, Cochin-9

3. The facts lie within a very narrow compass.

9. Aggrieved by the Order of adjudication dated 11.3.2005, the matter was carried in appeal to the Tribunal, which, as stated above, allowed the appeal in favour of the appellant placing reliance on the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal dated 11.5.2005.

5 Actual User 2.16 Capital goods, raw materials, intermediates, Condition components, consumables, spares, parts, accessories, instruments and other goods, which are importable without any restriction, may be imported by any person. However, if such imports require a licence/ certificate/permission, the actual user alone may import such goods unless the actual user condition is specifically dispensed with by the licensing authority. Second Hand 2.17 All second hand goods, excepting second hand capital Goods goods, shall be restricted for imports and may be imported only in accordance with the provisions of this Policy, ITC(HS), Handbook (Vol.1), Public Notice or a licence/certificate/permission issued in this behalf. Import of second hand capital goods, including refurbished/ reconditioned spares, shall be allowed freely. (This clause is not there in FTP 2002-07) (emphasis supplied) CHAPTER-5 EXPORT PROMOTION CAPITAL GOODS SCHEME EPCG Scheme 5.1 The scheme allows import of capital goods for pre production, production and post production (including CKD/SKD thereof as well as computer software systems) at 5% Customs duty subject to an export obligation equivalent to 8 times of duty saved on capital goods imported under EPCG scheme to be fulfilled over a period of 8 years reckoned from the date of issuance of licence. Capital goods would be allowed at 0% duty for exports of agricultural products and their value added variants.

4. All the Licensing Authorities are advised to take action accordingly.

This issues with the approval of DGFT.

(iii) Policy Circular No. 20 dated 23.2.2005:-

This issues in public interest.

(K.T. Chacko) Director General of Foreign Trade And Ex-Officio Additional Secretary to the Govt. of India 2 5 (Issued from File No.01/94/162/270/AM06/PC-1A)"

23. Accordingly, we allow the civil appeal filed by the assessee with no order as to costs.

Civil Appeal Nos. 3226, 3977 and 5259 of 2007:

25. For the reasons given by us in Civil Appeal No. 2999/07, hereinabove, we dismiss all the three civil appeals filed by the Department with no order as to costs.
State Of Karnataka & Ors vs G.V. Chandrashekhar

Civil Appeals arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 16527-16534/2004 Respondents herein were appointed as first division assistant, stenographer, watchman and have approached the KAT for their regularization of their services. The Tribunal by way of order dated 23.9.03 allowed the application of the respondents herein and directed compliance within 90 days from the date of receipt of the order. Challenging the order of the Tribunal, appellant State approached the High Court by way of a writ 8 petition which was rejected by reason of order dated 17.3.2004 and directing it to consider the claim of the respondents. Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(C) No.11893/2006 Respondent's husband was appointed a Driver on 30.5.1980 and he died on 15.8.92. Respondent sought for regularization of his services with all consequential benefits. The Tribunal on 10.7.2003 relying upon the decision on Bidu vs. State of Karnataka (ILR 2000 KAR 2405) directed to pass appropriate orders within 90 days, including consideration of claim for compassionate appointment. Challenging the order of the Tribunal the appellants came up with a writ petition before the High Court which was dismissed by reason of order dated 9.11.2004, placing reliance on State of Karnataka vs. Karnataka Casual and Daily rated workers' Union (ILR 2001 KAR 1178), Himachal Pradesh vs. Suresh Kumar [(AIR 1986 SC 1565] and Randhir Singh, D.S. Nakara, Dharwad etc. Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(C) No.11894/2006 Respondents herein were appointed as literate assistant, hand-pump helper, typist and sought for regularization of services with all 9 consequential benefits from their authorities. The High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the State, which challenged the Tribunal's order dated 09.06.2003 and directed the appellant to consider the claim of the respondents.

We feel bound by the observations made therein. Initial recruitment of the respondents being wholly illegal and contrary to the constitutional 25 scheme of this country, the impugned judgment of the High Court cannot be upheld. It is set aside accordingly.

7. In the light of the decision in Uma Devi (3) (supra) and the interpretation given to Para 53 therein by this Court in the abovementioned judgments, the appeals are allowed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
Bhagwan Krishan Gupta vs Prabha Gupta & Ors

5. An intra court appeal was preferred thereagainst. It was dismissed in limine. However, a special leave petition was filed before this Court which was marked as Special Leave Petition (C) No.12350 of 2006. Upon hearing the parties, the appeal was allowed and the matter was remitted by this Court by an order dated 27.04.2007, directing :

20. For the reasons aforementioned, there is no merit in the case. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with costs. Counsel's fee assessed at Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only).

February 25, 2009
Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corp vs Padma & Ors

3. Background facts giving rise to the appeal as projected by the claimants for compensation are as follows:

7. Coming to the question as to whether the multiplier is on the higher side, it appears that the deceased was aged about 53 years on the date of accident. That being so the appropriate multiplier would be 8. On that basis loss of dependency comes to Rs.7,83,296/-. Since there is no challenge to the amount awarded under conventional heads, the amount awarded by the Tribunal and affirmed by the High Court i.e. Rs.70,000/- is maintained. The compensation is fixed at Rs.8,53,296/-. The amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of the claim. While issuing notice on 10th July, 2008 a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- was directed to be deposited which it is stated has been deposited. The balance amount in terms of the present judgment shall be deposited within six weeks to 4 the concerned MACT. The mode of withdrawal include the amount to be kept in fixed deposit shall be fixed by the Tribunal.

8. The Appeal is disposed of.
Amin Khan vs State Of Rajasthan & Ors

The High Court noted that in the Test Identification Parade (in short the `TI Parade') held on 20th and 22nd March, 2005 Banwari Lal (PW-18) had correctly identified the accused persons. He also identified the accused persons in the trial Court. The foot prints of the respondents left at the spot were taken on 23.3.2005 before the learned Additional District Magistrate, Alwar and as per the Forensic Science Laboratory report foot moulds were found to be that of the accused persons. The investigating agency also seized hair from the hands of the deceased and as per DNA report, the seized hair tallied with the hair of accused Mubin and Amin. As per the testimony of the Investigating Officer various criminal cases were pending against the accused persons. Stand of the State as well as the petitioner in the revision petition was that the acquittal of the respondents was based on mere presumptions without considering the evidence on record and, therefore, it was liable to be set aside.

5. The order is questioned by the accused persons. Two Special Leave Petitions were filed. By order dated 21.11.2008 prayer was made for withdrawal of SLP (Crl.) No.432 of 2007. The same was dismissed as withdrawn.

14. The appeal is dismissed.
Vishnu Dutt Sharma vs Manju Sharma

Respondent in her written statement stated that on 14.09.1994, the appellant and his family members gave her a severe beating which led to her being medically examined by the doctors at Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital. A copy of the extract of the MLC register on that date was enclosed to the written statement. It was also stated that the appellant and his mother had taken the jewellery of the respondent and given it to the wife of the appellant's brother and on asking, respondent was again assaulted and sought to be burnt alive by the family members of the appellant.

The trial Court after examining the evidence came to the conclusion that no case of cruelty had been made out as alleged by the appellant. The Trial Court held that considering that the respondent had been turned out of the matrimonial house and had been given beatings for which she -3- was medically examined,it was the respondent who was treated cruelly by the appellant.

Had both parties been willing we could, of course, have granted a divorce by mutual consent as contemplated by Section 13B of the Act, but in this case the respondent is not willing to agree to a divorce.

For the aforesaid reasons, this appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.

FEBRUARY 27, 2009.
C.K.Sasankan vs Dhanalakshmi Bank Ltd

3. The appellant is the son of late C.V. Kunjikuttan, who was carrying on business as a civil contractor. Said C.V. Kunjikuttan carried on business of contracts in his individual capacity. He died on 8th September, 1989 and on his demise, the business was taken over by his legal heirs. While C.V. Kunjikuttan was alive he had availed of certain facilities from Dhanalakshmi Bank Ltd., Cherthala Branch, Alappuzha District - Respondent herein (for short the `Bank'). The respondent is a scheduled bank and has its principal place of business at Thrissur in Kerala and Branches in various other places. C.V. Kunjikuttan approached the respondent - bank in 1973 for sanction of an over draft financial facility. The Bank sanctioned him an overdraft facility of Rs. 3 lakh. The overdraft facility allowed to C.V. Kunjikuttan was secured by security of immovable property, which was collateral security. On 30.10.1980, the Bank granted an enhanced overdraft facility of Rs. 9 lakh which was secured by late C.V. Kunjikuttan and his children including the appellant herein.

4. As the said amount was not repaid the bank filed a suit being O.S. No. 176 of 1991 on the file of sub-court, Cherthala. Subsequently the proceedings were transferred to Debts Recovery Tribunal (for short "DRT") on its formation under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993. The relief prayed by the Bank was to Page 2 of 7 realize a sum of Rs. 28,50,707.03 from the appellants, if necessary, by sale of the suit / scheduled properties. The DRT vide Judgment dated 10.08.2001 allowed the proceedings initiated by the Bank and accordingly declared that the debts due to the bank is Rs. 28,50,707.03 together with interest @ 25% per annum compounding with quarterly rests from 17.7.1991 i.e. from the date of filing of the suit till the date of the Judgment with a simple interest at the rate of 19.4% per annum from 11.08.2001 till realisation. The appeal from the said order was dismissed by the Appellate Tribunal as also by the Division Bench of the High Court of Madras.

10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, we find that the rate of interest as awarded for pendente lite and future interest is exorbitant and thus we direct that pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 9% shall be paid which is found to be just, proper and reasonable.

11. The appeal stands allowed to the aforesaid extent.
Venkatanatha Chary vs Nalla Raji Reddy

The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for specific performance of agreement dated 25th January, 1992. In terms of the agreement, the parties were required to perform their respective obligations by 31st March, 1992. By an order dated 3rd April, 2007, the trial Court, after taking note of the fact that the suit could have been filed within a period of three years from 31st March, 1992, when the cause of action is said to have accrued to the plaintiff but the suit was filed in the year 2006 held that the same is barred by limitation and accordingly rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The High Court allowed the revision filed by the petitioner and set aside the order of the trial Court only on the ground that the same was passed without requiring the defendant to file written statement.

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, impugned order of the High Court is set aside and the one passed by the trial Court is restored.
Joginder Singh vs State Of Punjab

3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

The inquest report on the dead body of Harjinder Singh was prepared by Inspector Harbans Lal and he sent the dead body of Harjinder Singh to Civil Hospital, Fazilka, where post mortem on the dead body of Harjinder Singh was conducted. As per the post mortem report, cause of death was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of injuries Nos.1 and 2, which 3 were on the vital part of the brain and were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature and the injuries were caused with fire-arms.

14. Above being the position the applicable offence is Section 302 IPC. We do no find any merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed.
Lunaram vs Bhupat Singh & Ors

3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

At the trial, 27 witnesses were produced and thirty-six documents were exhibited by the prosecution to prove their case, whereas, in defence, statement of one witness was recorded and eight documents were produced. Statements of the accused were recoded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (in short the `Code'). 3 The learned trial Court convicted accused Bhupat Singh, Ral Singh and Amiya under Section 302/34 of IPC and Section 3(2)(5) of SC/ST Act. They were sentenced to life imprisonment and fine of Rs.500/- each, in default of payment of fine, to further suffer one month's imprisonment. They were also convicted under Section 323 IPC, and sentenced to one month's imprisonment and a fine of Rs.50/- each, in default of payment of fine, to further suffer one week imprisonment. These accused were, however, acquitted from Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC. Accused Dashrath Giri @ Baba was acquitted completely.

9. The appeal is dismissed.
Sachdev vs Jaibir @ Jaidev & Ors

3. The factual scenario has been described in detail in Criminal Appeal No.16/2007 and Criminal Appeal No........ of 2009 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) 2007 of 2008) disposed of by us today. In the present appeal filed by the complainant, who had suffered injuries the legality of the order so far as it relates to reduction of sentence is concerned, has been questioned. It has been stated that the victims were mercilessly beaten and large number of injuries were caused to them. Without even indicating any basis, the sentence has been reduced. Injured Ram Swarup could not be examined because, as per the opinion of the doctor, he has lost his memory due to the injury caused to him. So far as the injuries on Ram Swarup are concerned they are as follows:

11. The appeal is allowed to the extent that the sentence in respect of accused Raj Kumar is enhanced from 7 years to 10 years in respect of offence relatable to Section 307 IPC. The appeal fails so far as the other co- accused persons are concerned in relation to the prayer for enhancement of sentence.

12. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.
Union Bank Of India & Anr vs Panchanan Subudhi

A perusal of the record shows that the appellant-bank extended financial facility to the respondent to an extent of Rs.10 lakhs. The respondent deposited the title deeds of land and building as security. On 31.12.2000, the account of the respondent was declared as non-performing asset and O.A. No.70 of 2002 was filed before Debts Recovery Tribunal, Cuttack (for short, `the Tribunal'). During the pendency of the O.A., the appellant-bank issued notice dated 3.9.2004 under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short `the Act'). This was followed by notice dated -2- 4.12.2004 issued under Section 13(4) of the Act. By an order dated 30.5.2005, the Tribunal passed decree in favour of the appellant for a sum of Rs.16,10,957/- along with pendent elite and future interest @ 12% per annum from the date of application. The respondent challenged the proceedings initiated under the Act in Writ Petition No.7435 of 2005. The High Court stayed the proceeding subject to the respondent depositing a sum of Rs.10 lakhs, which the latter never deposited. In the interregnum, the respondent approached the bank for one time settlement. The bank agreed for settlement, but the respondent failed to abide by the conditions of settlement. Consequently, bank issued notice dated 12.2.2007 for possession of the secured assets. The respondent challenged the said action in W.P. No.2322 of 2007, which has been disposed of by the High Court in the manner indicated hereinabove.

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside and writ petition filed by the respondent before the High Court is dismissed.
Hazura Singh(D)Tr.Lr vs Gurdial Singh & Ors

The suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell land measuring 12 bighas 4 biswas situated in Village - Hasan, Tehsil - Sarhand, District - Patiala filed by the plaintiffs (respondents herein) was decreed by Sub Judge, Bassi against the defendants (appellants herein) with a direction to them to execute the sale deed on payment of the balance price. The appeal preferred by the appellants was dismissed by Additional District Judge, Patiala. However, the second appeal filed by the appellants was allowed by the High Court and the judgments and decrees of the Courts below were modified by directing that the respondents shall be entitled to interest on the balance amount deposited by him in the trial Court.

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, impugned order rendered by the High Court is set aside and the matter is remanded to the High Court. Now, the High Court shall consider whether any substantial question of law arises in the second appeal or not and if it comes to the conclusion that any such question of law arises, the same shall be framed and, thereafter, the appeal shall be decided in accordance with law after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties.
Waheed Baig vs Bangi Lakshmamma & Ors

2. The background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

He filed an amended plaint stating that he became the owner by part performance, and therefore, the 1st defendant is liable to pay rents to the plaintiff and the rent is calculated at Rs.92/-per month and the rental dues are calculated at Rs.5,520/-.

6. The questions formulated were not questions of law and therefore the Second Appeal was incompetent.

11. There is substance in the plea as taken by the appellant. As a matter of fact there was no question of the High Court giving direction to the Labour Department to allot the land for facilitating the transfer of the property in favour of the respondent No.1 and further there could not have been any direction to the Labour Commissioner to transfer the property in favour of the respondents 1 to 3. Looked at from any angle, the judgment of the High Court is indefensible and deserves to be set aside which we direct.

13. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent without any order as to costs.