L-NLProc/TathyaNyaya-and-FactLegalLlama-NyayaScrape-Datasets huggingface dataset:
Siemens Ltd.& Anr vs Siemens Employees Union & Anr

3. The appellant no. 1 is a public limited company having its registered office at 130, Pandurang Budhkar Marg, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai and is engaged in the business of manufacturing switchgears, switchboards, motors, etc., of its many factories, one is located at Thane-Belapur Road, Kalwe, Thane, and houses the plant that manufactures switchboards for the company. The appellant employs about 2200 employees. The appellant no. 2 is the Chief Manager (Personnel) of the said Company.

5. In 2007 the trade union preferred a complaint under Section 28 of the Maharashtra Act for unfair labour practices, jointly and severally against the company, its Chief Manager for personnel (appellant no. 2) and its Works Manager (respondent no.2) before the learned Industrial Court, Thane, Maharashtra. The trade union impugned a notification dated 3rd May, 2007 issued by the company for its workmen employed in its factory located in Kalwe, whereby applications were invited to appear for a selection process to undergo a two year long period as an `Officer Trainee'. This training was to be in the fields of manufacturing, quality inspection and testing, logistics and technical sales order execution. The notification stated that after the successful completion of the said two years, the trainees were to be designated as `Junior Executive Officers'. The case of the respondent trade union is that though the designation of `Junior Executive Officer' was that of an officer belonging to the management cadre, in fact it was merely a 3 nomenclature, with negligible content of managerial work. It was urged that the job description of a Junior Executive Officer was same as that of a workman, with little additional duties. Resultantly, the Junior Executive Officers of the factory were now to do the very same work that had always been done by the workmen.

32. In the instant case no malafide has been alleged against the appellant-company. Nor it is anybody's case that as a result of reorganization of its working pattern by introducing the scheme of promotion any person is either retrenched or is rendered surplus.

(page 402) 27

38. In the instant case no malafide has been alleged by the union against the appellant-company in the matter of reorganization of its work. It is also nobody's case that as a result of the reorganization of the work any attempt is made by the appellant-

40. For the reasons aforesaid, we are of the view that the High court failed to have a correct perspective of the questions involved in this case and obviously came to an erroneous finding.

41. We allow the appeal and set aside the order of the High Court in which has merged the order of the Labour Court. However, we make it clear that in implementing the scheme the management of the appellant-company must not bring about any retrenchment of the workmen nor should the workmen be rendered surplus in any way.

42. The appeal is, thus, allowed. There will be no order as to cost.
State Bank Of India vs Ram Lal Bhaskar & Anr

2. The facts very briefly are that the respondent no.1 worked as a Branch Manager of the appellant-Bank at Sirsaganj Branch. He was served with a charge-sheet dated 22.12.1999 alleging various acts of misconduct as the Branch Manager of Sirsaganj Branch. Thereafter, an enquiry was conducted and the enquiry officer submitted a 2 report dated 28.09.2000 holding that four out of the six charges were proved against the respondent no.1. The charges No.1, 2, 4 and 6 which were proved against the respondent no.1 in the enquiry are as follows:

The respondent no.1 filed an appeal against the order of the appointing authority, but the appellate authority dismissed the appeal by order dated 09.03.2002. The respondent no.1 filed a Review Petition, but the reviewing committee also dismissed the Review Petition by order dated 20.12.2002.

9. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order of the High Court and allow the appeal with no order as to costs.
State Of West Bengal & Ors vs Nazrul Islam

3. The facts very briefly are that on 26.07.2007 the Police Directorate of West Bengal notified recruitment of Constables in the West Bengal Police from Howrah District. The name of the respondent was sponsored by the Employment Exchange, Uluberia, Howrah, for 2 recruitment as Constable and on 17.09.2007 the provisional select list was notified in which the respondent's name found place at serial no.76. The respondent appeared before the Medical Board and was found medically fit. On 28.09.2007, the respondent was supplied a Verification Roll for verification of his antecedents and the respondent filled the Verification Roll and submitted the same to the Reserve Officer, Howrah, on 29.09.2007. The Verification Roll of the respondent was sent to the District Intelligence Branch, Howrah, on 08.10.2007. In the course of enquiry, it came to light that he was involved in a criminal case involving offences under Sections 148/323/380/448/427/506, IPC, in Bagnan PS Case No.97 of 2007 and after investigation, the charge-sheet had already been filed in the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Uluberia, Howrah, and that the respondent had surrendered before the Court and had been granted bail. All these facts, however, had been concealed in column no.13 of the Verification Roll submitted by the respondent in which he was required 3 to state whether he was ever arrested, detained or convicted. The authorities, therefore, did not appoint the respondent as a Constable.

4. Aggrieved, the respondent filed O.A.No.2500 of 2008 before the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal for a direction upon the authorities to issue appointment letter in his favour, but by order dated 25.07.2008 the Tribunal declined to grant any relief to the respondent. The order of the Tribunal was challenged by the respondent before the High Court and in the impugned order, the High Court held that the authorities were not entitled to withhold the offer of appointment to the respondent and directed the authorities to issue the letter of appointment in favour of the respondent without any further delay. The High Court, however, observed in the impugned order that the appointment of the respondent to the post of Constable will abide by the final decision of the pending criminal case.

6. We, therefore, allow the appeal, set aside the impugned order of the High Court and dismiss the Writ Petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution filed 5 by the respondent in the High Court. There shall be no order as to costs.
Bar Council Of Maharashtra vs Manubhai Paragji Vashi & Ors

2. The facts very briefly are that for elections to the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa (for short `the State Bar Council'), Electoral Roll was prepared in which the names of the Advocates on the roll of the State Bar Council who had not paid the subscription as per Rule 40, Chapter -II, Part VI of the Rules were deleted from the Electoral Roll. The names of these Advocates had to be deleted from the Electoral Roll because Rule 6(h) of the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa Rules (for short `the State Bar Council Rules') provided that the name of an Advocate appearing in the State Bar Council Roll shall not be on the Electoral Roll if he has not paid the subscription under Rule 40, Chapter - II, Part VI of the Rules and obtained receipt from the State Bar Council. Respondent No.1, who was earlier a member of the State Bar Council, filed Writ Petition No. 903 of 2004 before the High Court on 31.12.2003 praying that all the Advocates on the Roll of the State Bar Council be allowed to cast their votes and contest the elections without being disqualified for non-payment of the 3 amounts as per Rule 40, Chapter - II, Part VI of the Rules.

While the Writ Petition was pending, elections to the State Bar Council were held and the result of the elections was declared on 04.03.2004. Respondent Nos. 1 and 7 to 30 were declared elected to the State Bar Council and the State Bar Council was constituted for a fresh term of five years.

31. Method of Voting : - (1) Voter shall be entitled to mark his preferences to all the candidates appearing in the voting paper in the form mentioned hereinbelow and such preferences shall not be less than to ten candidates.

I, Part III of the Bar Council of India Rules, 1975, will not be able to cast his vote in favour of even a single candidate to whom he may have communicated his first preference vote.

11. For the aforesaid reasons, we are not inclined to entertain these Special Leave Petitions and we accordingly dismiss the same. There shall be no order as to costs.
B.S.N.L. Ltd vs Man Singh

3. The respondents workmen worked with the appellant as casual labourers on daily wages during the year 1984-85. Due to non-availability of work, 2 their services were terminated in the year 1986. No notice or retrenchment compensation was given to them before terminating their services. After about five years, they raised an industrial dispute in the year 1991. The appropriate Government referred the dispute to the Labour Court for adjudication. The Labour Court vide its award dated 27.5.2005 ordered reinstatement of the respondents-workmen on the same post which they were holding at the time of their termination.

6. In view of the aforementioned legal position and the fact that the respondents - workmen were engaged as 'daily wagers' and they had merely worked for more than 240 days, in our considered view, relief of reinstatement cannot be said to be justified and instead, monetary compensation would meet the ends of justice.

7. Accordingly, the impugned judgment passed by the High Court as also the award dated 27.5.2005 passed by the Labour Court are set aside. We direct the appellant Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. to pay Rs.2 lakhs to each of the respondents in full and final settlement of their claim, within six weeks from today. In case the payment is not made within the aforementioned stipulated time, the amount shall carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum. 4

8. These appeals are accordingly allowed to the aforesaid extent. The parties are directed to bear their own costs.

.....................J (DALVEER BHANDARI) .....................J (DIPAK MISRA) New Delhi;

October 14, 2011.
R.Indira Saratchandra vs State Of T.Nadu & Ors

2.The appellant's land was acquired by the State Government for and on behalf of Tamil Nadu Housing Board. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued on 01.11.1982 and was published in the Official 2 Gazette on 24.11.1982. The declaration under Section 6 was issued on 2.2.1985. The same was published in the Official Gazette dated 20.02.1985 and in the local newspapers on 22.5.1985.

4.Immediately thereafter, the appellant and proforma respondent Nos. 4 to 7, whose name were deleted vide order dated 25.01.2010, filed Writ Petition No.19284 of 1996 for grant of a declaration that the acquisition of their land will be deemed to have lapsed because the award was not passed within two years. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 contested the writ petition by asserting that the award was passed within 3 two years from the date of receipt of the copy of the Division Bench judgment dated 29.8.1996.

"11A. Period within which an award shall be made - The Collector shall make an award under section 11 within a period of two years from the date of the publication of the declaration and if no award is made within that period, the entire proceedings for the acquisition of the land shall lapse.

18. There is, however, substance in the plea that those matters which have obtained finality should not be re-opened. The present judgment shall operate prospectively to the extent that cases where awards have been made and the compensations have been 14 paid, shall not be reopened, by applying the ratio of the present judgment. The appeals are accordingly disposed of and the subsequent notifications containing declaration under Section 6 of the Act are quashed."

(emphasis supplied)

14.In our view, the last paragraph of the aforesaid judgment has no bearing on this case because at the time of pronouncement of Constitution Bench judgment, the writ petition filed by the appellant and the proforma respondents for grant of a declaration that the acquisition will be deemed to have lapsed due to non- making of award for two years was pending before the High Court.

16.In the result, the appeal is allowed, the impugned judgment is set aside and the order passed by the learned Single Judge is restored.

New Delhi.
Commnr. Of Customs, Vishakhapatnam vs M/S. Aggarwal Industries Ltd

3. On verification of the documents filed, the Adjudicating Authority noticed certain discrepancies in the shipment period. Accordingly, on 5th October 2001, he issued a demand letter to the respondent under Rule 10A of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 1988 (for short "CVR 1988") to show cause as to why the contract price be not rejected and the Customs duty be not determined by adopting contemporary invoice price on which other importers had entered into contract for supply of the same item either with the same supplier or other suppliers in the same country. Since the imputation in the show cause notice has a material bearing on the determination of the issue involved, the relevant portion of the notice is extracted below:

14. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in these appeals. All the appeals are dismissed accordingly, with no order as to costs.

OCTOBER 17, 2011.

ARS 17
Union Of India & Anr vs M/S. Deepak Electric & Trading Co. & Anr

2. The facts very briefly are that the appellants and the respondent No.1 entered into a contract for construction of PMT Complex for NSG at Manesar. The contract contained an arbitration clause for resolving disputes between the parties.

As disputes arose between the parties, the respondent No.1 invoked the arbitration clause and an arbitrator was appointed. The arbitrator published his award on 17.06.1996 2 and on 08.07.1996, the respondents filed a petition in the High Court of Delhi under Sections 14 and 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (for short `the Act') for filing the award and for making the award a rule of the court and for passing a decree in terms of the award. The petition was registered as Suit No.1673-A/1996. After the award was filed, notice of the filing of the award was directed to be issued to the parties on 13.01.1997. Notice was served on the Union of India, but notice could not be served on the Executive Engineer, C.P.W.D. A letter dated 21.03.1997 was addressed by the Executive Engineer to the Registrar of the Delhi High Court saying that he had not received a formal notice from the court.

9. We, accordingly, set aside the order of the learned Single Judge as well as the impugned order of the Division Bench of the High Court and remand the matter to the Single Judge of the High Court for fresh decision in accordance with law. The appeal is allowed with no order as to costs.
Union Of India & Ors vs B.S. Darjee & Anr

2. The facts very briefly are that the respondent no.1 was working as Constable (General Duty) under the Central Industrial Security Force (for short `the CISF'). In 1993, he was considered for promotion to the rank of Lance Naik and was empanelled for such promotion. Before he was appointed as Lance Naik, however, he was awarded the punishment of withholding of one increment for a period of 2 one year and as per circulars of the Department of Personnel and Training, Government of India, his empanelment for promotion to the rank of Lance Naik had to be cancelled on account of the punishment. In 1994, respondent no.1 was again considered for promotion and he was found fit, but before his actual promotion he was awarded punishment of withholding of one increment for a period of one year and his promotion was again cancelled.

4. Aggrieved, the respondent no.1 filed Writ Petition No. 7929 of 2000 before the High Court and contended that though as a Constable he had put in ten years of service and was eligible for consideration for promotion, he has not been considered for promotion since 1998. By the impugned order, the High Court held that the respondent no.1 was considered by the DPC for promotion in the year 1997 and was not found fit for promotion, but he has not been considered for promotion in the years 1998, 1999 and 2000. The High Court further held in the impugned order 4 that in the counter affidavit it was indicated that as per the messages received from the Head Quarters, only Lance Naiks had been considered for promotion, but such consideration was not proper as under the rules, Constables on completion of ten years of service were also eligible and there was no justification to ignore the case of the respondent no.1 for promotion to the post of Head Constable in the years 1998, 1999 and 2000. Accordingly, the High Court, by the impugned order, directed the appellants to consider the case of respondent no.1 for promotion from 1998 onwards.

The aforesaid averments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the appellants before the High Court are supported by circulars dated 21.01.1998, 07.01.1999 and 08.01.2000, copies of which are annexed to the Special Leave Petition as Annexures P5, P6 and P7.

8. We accordingly allow this appeal and set aside the impugned order of the High Court with no order as to costs.
Commandant & Ors vs Surinder Kumar

2. The facts very briefly are that the respondent was working as a Constable in the Central Reserve Police Force (for short `the CRPF'). A complaint was lodged against the respondent. It was alleged in the complaint that he was detailed with vehicle no.25 to carry patrolling party on Chandel Palel Road but he left the vehicle unattended and absented himself without permission of his superior officer 2 and reported on his own after 20 minutes. It was also alleged in the complaint that while he was on duty, he consumed illicit alcohol and in an inebriated state of mind misbehaved with his superior officer H.N. Singh, snatched his AK-47 rifle and pointed the barrel of the rifle to him and on the intervention of Lachhi Ram, Assistant Commandant, the barrel of the rifle was pointed upward and an untoward incident was avoided. A copy of the complaint was served on the respondent and a disciplinary enquiry was conducted and the Assistant Commandant-cum-Magistrate First Class in his order dated 10.06.1993 found the respondent guilty of charges and convicted him and sentenced him to imprisonment till the rising of the Court. By a separate order dated 10.06.1993, the Commandant also dismissed the respondent from service.

Magistrate First Class as well as the order of dismissal dated 10.06.1993 passed by the Commandant in Writ Petition No.555 of 1994 before the High Court. The Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on 09.11.1998. The respondent challenged the order of the learned Single Judge in 3 L.P.A. No. 600-A 1999 and by the impugned order, the Division Bench held that the punishment of dismissal of the respondent was disproportionate in as much as his conviction was till the rising of the court for having committed a less heinous offence. By the impugned order, the Division Bench of the High Court directed the appellants to reconsider the nature and quantum of punishment awarded to the respondent and accordingly grant him consequential benefits.

12. Place of imprisonment and liability to dismissal on imprisonment.-(1) Every person 6 sentenced under this Act to imprisonment may be dismissed from the Force, and shall further be liable to forfeiture of pay, allowance and any other moneys due to him as well as of any medals and decorations received by him."

It will be clear from Section 10(n) of the Act that a member of the CRPF who is guilty of any act or omission which is prejudicial to good order and discipline is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine which may extend to three months' pay, or with both.

10. We, accordingly, allow this appeal and set aside the impugned order of the Division Bench of the High Court. No costs.
Takdir Samsuddin Sheikh vs State Of Gujarat & Anr

2408 on the highway. The car was checked and in the dicky of the car blood stained clothes were found. Blood stained swords were also recovered on the disclosure statements of the appellants. One of the swords was not having the handle.

(d) After conclusion of the investigation, the police submitted the charge-sheet and the matter was committed to the Sessions Court, Vadodara. After conclusion of the trial, the Sessions Court vide judgment and order dated 14.12.2001 convicted the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 3 114 IPC and both of them have been sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1,000/- each.

3. Being aggrieved, both the appellants preferred appeal before the High Court which has been dismissed vide impugned judgment and order dated 4.5.2009. Hence, these appeals.

The complainant who was partner in the Firm along with the deceased and appellant no.1 herein could have also created the mischief as he would be the beneficiary in terms of money by eliminating one partner Moiyuddin Shaikh and getting convicted appellant No.1. In view of the above, the impugned judgment and order is liable to be set aside, and appeals deserve to be allowed.

Therefore, the question of recovery of blood stained clothes or 5 swords could not arise prior to that. The appeals lack merit and are liable to be dismissed.

Had it been so, Smt. Jadaavben Ambalal Parmar (PW.3) and her son Sureshbhai Ambalal Parmar (PW.5) could have also been involved in the case.

Though, he was subjected to cross-examination, nothing substantial could be elicited.

(ii) Death of the deceased is proved. Appellants were arrested after 13 days and from the dickey of their car clothes stained with blood were discovered.

(iii) The evidence of Bharat Trivedi (PW.1) is fully trustworthy and he is not an interested witness.

(iv) In fact, Bharat Trivedi (PW.1) had informed brother of deceased about the incident without any loss of time.

(vi) Principle of falsus in uno falsus in omnibus is not applicable to a criminal trial in India.

15. In view of the above, we do not see any cogent reason to interfere with the impugned judgments and order. The appeals lack merit and are accordingly dismissed.
Jaswant Singh vs Gurdev Singh & Ors

b) Even as early as on 05.06.1972, a civil suit was filed by the appellant herein in the court of sub-Judge, First Class, Hoshiarpur seeking permanent injunction against one Amar Kaur and others restraining them from interfering in the land situated in Simbli. During the pendency of the suit, the parties entered into a compromise dated 27.11.1972 and on that basis the suit was decreed on 08.12.1972 and Mutation No. 1536 was sanctioned in favour of the appellant herein with 2 respect to 12-1/2 acres of land and the same was delivered to him which he had been in possession since 16.02.1973.

11) Consequently, the appeals fail and are accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

OCTOBER 21, 2011.