L-NLProc/TathyaNyaya-and-FactLegalLlama-NyayaScrape-Datasets huggingface dataset:
Hemant Vimalnath Narichania & Anr vs Anand Darshan C.H.S.Ltd.& Ors

4. The facts leading to the filing of the present appeals are as under:

The Registrar shall first prepare a draft scheme.

b. He shall then consult the Federal Society. As part of process of consultation, the Registrar would naturally be obliged to send the draft scheme to the Federal Society.

c. The suggestions, if any, made by the Federal Society would then be considered and the Registrar shall thereafter prepare a draft order, proposed to be issued by him. This draft order shall then be sent to the concerned Society calling upon the said Society to invite objections or suggestions from any of its members.

d. If any suggestions or objections are made to the draft order, the Registrar shall consider if any modifications seem desirable and in the light of such suggestions or objections he shall then issue a final order.

9. We, therefore, allow these appeals and set aside the judgment and order under appeal. The order dated 03.11.2008 passed by the Deputy Registrar accepting the proposal for division of Respondent No.1 - Society as confirmed by the Appellate and Revisional Authorities is restored. The matter shall now be taken up by the Deputy Registrar for passing consequential directions, if any.

10. The appeals are allowed in aforementioned terms. No order as to costs.

……………………………J (V.GOPALA GOWDA) … …………………………J (UDAY UMESH LALIT) New Delhi February 23, 2016
Ramadhar Singh & Ors vs Committee Of Mgt. S.M.S.P.S. Itali& Ors

2. The issued raised in this appeal pertains to election to the Committee of Management of Shri Manas Shiksha Prasar Samiti, Itaili. The disputed election was held on 01.04.2008. It is not in dispute that the term of the Committee is for three years. There were elections in 2011 and 2014 and another election must be getting due as well.

5. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that Civil Suit being OS No. 1624 of 2009 filed by them, which is pending before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mau, U.P. is not pressed. Accordingly, the said suit being O.S. No. 1624 of 2009 on the file of the Civil Court, Mau, U. P. shall stand dismissed and consequently, shall stand struck off from its files. The Registry shall communite this Judgment to the Civil Court, Mau, U.P. forthwith.

6. We make it clear that in the nature of the order we have passed, all other questions of law raised in the appeal are left open.

No costs.

February 23, 2016.
Ram Kumar Gijroya vs Delhi Sub. Services Selection Bd. & Anr

As the question of law arising in all these appeals is similar, for the sake of convenience and brevity, we refer to the facts of Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(C) No.27550 of 2012, which has been filed against the impugned judgment and order dated 24.01.2012, The necessary relevant facts required to appreciate the rival legal contentions advanced on behalf of the parties are stated in brief hereunder :-

In view of its great importance, the full text of his speech delivered in the Constituent Assembly on the point is appended to this judgment. But I shall now read a few passages from it. Dr Ambedkar stated:
M/S Arti Spinning Mills Etc.Etc vs State Of Haryana & Anr

4. Be that as it may, the issues pertain to the claim made by the appellants for enhancement of compensation. The review application was filed -2- before the High Court seeking land value at the rate of Rs.16.08 per acre as they are granted to the adjoining property covered by R.F.A. No. 363 of 2005 titled as Ram Chand @ Ram Chander (since deceased) through L.R. Raghbir Singh versus State of Haryana and others decided on 29.5.2009.

6. We are informed, on remand, the High Court, has allowed the review application by fixing the compensation at the rate of Rs.16,08,000/- per acre.

7. Therefore, these appeals are allowed. The appellants shall be entitled to land value fixed at Rs.16,08,000/- per acre. However, the appellants shall not be entitled for any statutory benefits for a period of 2411 days covered by delay before the High Court as well as before this Court.
M/S. Electro Optics (P) Ltd vs State Of Tamil Nadu

Common judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Madras dated 29.09.2009 in Tax Case Nos.1834 of 2006, 2307 of 2008 and Writ Petition No.18770 of 2000 is under challenge in these appeals. The High Court has rejected the case of the appellant assessee in respect of Assessment Years 1993-94 and 1994-95 and as a consequence also rejected the challenge to the penalty and thereby upheld order of Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal which arose out of orders under Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) passed by the original authority as well as appellate authority, all against the appellant. For both the assessment years the dispute is confined to an issue of law relating to classification of the goods sold by the appellant. According to the appellant it is engaged in the sale of electronic goods (survey instruments) imported from other countries and such goods should rightfully fall within Entry 50, Part B of Schedule I of the Act attracting rate of 3%. On the other hand the authorities have taken the stand that survey instruments, whether electronic or otherwise, are covered by Entry 14, Part F of Schedule I, chargeable @ 16%. Since appellant’s claim was not accepted by the Commercial Tax Officer who assessed the appellant at 16% leading to demand of tax as well as penalty, the appellant preferred appeal before the Appellate Commissioner. On being unsuccessful, the appellant preferred further appeal before the Tribunal and then the matter reached the High Court leading to the impugned order under appeal. The two relevant entries, i.e., Entry 50 of Part B and Entry 14 of Part F of Schedule I are as follows:

In the result, the Civil Appeal Nos. 10554 and 10562 of 2010 containing challenge to assessments orders are dismissed. The remaining appeal Civil Appeal No. 10563 of 2010 relating to penalty is allowed to the extent that balance amount of penalty shall not be realised from the appellant. There shall be no order as to further costs.

February 26, 2016.
Royal Western India Turf Club Ltd vs E.S.I. Corpn.& Ors

2. The main question involved in the present appeals whether the ESI Act is applicable to Royal Western India Turf Club Ltd. has been concluded by a 3-Judge Bench decision of this Court vide judgment dated 31.7.2014. It has been held that the Turf Club would fall within the meaning of the word ‘shop’ as mentioned in the notification issued under the ESI Act. Therefore, the provisions of ESI Act would extend to the appellant also. Thereafter the matters have been placed before a Division Bench to consider other questions on merit.

15. In our opinion, the Turf Club is liable to make the contribution as per notification dated 18.9.1978 along with interest at such rate as provided in the Act and the Rules till the date of actual payment. Let the amount be contributed within a period of three months from today. Consequently, the appeals preferred by ESI Corporation are allowed and the ones preferred by Turf Club are dismissed with costs of Rs.2 lakhs payable to the ESI Corporation.
State Of M.P vs Udaibhan

Since the High Court did not disbelieve the substratum of the prosecution case and has maintained the conviction of respondents, albeit for an offence minor to one under Section 307 or Section 307 read with Section 34 of IPC, the only material issue worth consideration in these appeals is whether the High Court in the matter of awarding of punishment has ignored the relevant considerations and adopted an erroneous approach. The High Court accepted the contention advanced on behalf of the accused that the evidence on record did not establish any intention on the part of the accused persons to kill the complainant or his brother, the two injured in this case. The High Court did not doubt nor did the accused persons raise any contention that the injury sustained by the complainant on head was not a grievous injury. Being an incised wound on temporal region of the head, it was clearly caused by a sharp cutting weapon and dangerous to life. The doctor held the aforesaid injury no.1 on the head to be grievous on the basis of X-ray which showed fracture of the skull bone. The High Court in our considered opinion failed to keep under focus various relevant factors for a proper decision on the quantum of sentence which should have been imposed even for the altered conviction under Section 326 or Section 326/34 of the IPC. The prosecution case which has been accepted as true disclosed that the complainant Kriparam was called to Panchayat Bhawan where the accused persons were already present with weapons. Rajaram was having farsa whereas Hakim was armed with an iron rod and Udaibhan with lathi. As soon as the complainant arrived he was threatened and assaulted by all the three with their respective weapons. Rajaram caused a farsa injury on the head, Hakim caused an injury with iron bar on the eyebrow near the right eye. Udaibhan gave more than one lathi blows. When complainant’s brother Prabhu came for his rescue then he was also assaulted with lathi blows by Udaibhan.

In such a situation, the interest of justice requires interference with the punishment imposed by the High Court. The ends of justice would be satisfied by imposing on all the three accused persons a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three years in place of period already undergone, for the offence under Section 326 as well as Section 326/34 of the IPC. The other sentence which has been maintained by the High Court is left intact. However, it is clarified that sentence of imprisonment for different offences against the respondents shall run concurrently. The impugned judgment and order are modified accordingly. The Trial Court shall take all necessary steps to ensure that the respondents are taken into custody forthwith to serve out the remainder period of imprisonment in connection with Sessions Case No. 16/2001, tried by Third Additional Sessions Judge, Shivpuri (Madhya Pradesh). The appeals preferred by the State are allowed to the aforesaid extent only.

March 01, 2016.
State Of M.P vs Goloo Raikwar & Anr

Briefly the facts are as follows : Deceased Hari Choudhary is the uncle of PW1 Kallu Choudhary. On 15.8.2000 at about 3.30 p.m. both of them were going to eat betel and on their way they saw respondent no.1/accused Golu, respondent no.2/accused Bhura and three other accused namely Puttu @ Ram Charan, Gabbar and Bedilal armed with weapons, coming and accused Bhura hurled country bomb at them. On explosion they fell down and accused Bhura dealt a blow of sword to PW1 Kallu and the other accused also assaulted him with their weapons. PW1 saw the accused persons assaulting Hari Choudhary with their weapons. He ran and informed PW3 Ram Niwas, brother of Hari and they carried injured Hari to Victoria Hospital, Jabalpur where he was declared dead. On telephonic information PW10 Sub- Inspector R.B. Soni reached the hospital and recorded Exh.P1 complaint given by PW1 Kallu and prepared Exh.P2 Murg Report. He conducted inquest and prepared Exh.P3 Inquest Report and gave requisition for conducting post- mortem. He also sent injured PW1 Kallu for medical examination.

Accordingly, we allow this appeal and set aside the impugned judgment and restore the judgment of the trial court convicting the respondents/accused for the offence of murder, with a sentence of imprisonment for life. The respondents/accused are directed to surrender before the trial court to serve out the remaining sentence, failing which the trial court would forthwith issue warrants of arrest and send them to jail.

March 02, 2016
Score Information Technologies Ltd vs Sriyash Technologies Ltd. & Ors

2. The appellant herein was the respondent No.4 in Writ Petition No.1087/2007 on the file of the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital. That writ petition was filed by respondent No.1 herein, challenging the award of project of Smart Card based driving licence and vehicle registration certificate. Though it may not be necessary to go into the facts in detail, still it is significant to note that respondent No.3 in the Writ Petition, namely, HILTRON is a Public Sector Undertaking, with whom the State of Uttarakhand had entered into an MOU for providing, facilitating and marketing information technology solutions within the State of Uttarakhand. HILTRON was also nominated as the Information Technology and Communication service provider for various Departments, Semi- Government Departments and Institutions, etc. HILTRON and Transport Commissioner of Uttarakhand entered into an MOU with regard to the project of Smart Card based driving licence and vehicle registration certificate. HILTRON in turn nominated the appellant herein for execution of the project work. That MOU with HILTRON was challenged by the respondent No.1 herein (petitioner before the High Court). According to them, the award of the project to HILTRON on the basis of an understanding between the Transport Commissioner and the undertaking was impermissible under law, being violative of Article 14. Therefore, necessarily any arrangement made by the HILTRON with any other party would also have to be set at naught. The learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition holding that there was no illegality on the part of the State and the Transport Commissioner in getting the work of Smart Card based driving licence and vehicle registration certificate, etc. done through HILTRON with the assistance of the appellant herein. The above conclusion of the learned Single Judge was based on the finding that the writ petitioners were not competitors qualified for execution of the project and hence the intra court-before the Division Bench.

4. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed and the writ petition was also allowed setting aside the arrangement made by the Transport Commissioner with the HILTRON-Respondent No.3 in the High Court.

8. In public interest, we are also of the view that the State should take steps, if not already taken, for execution of the project, in accordance with law expeditiously.

9. With the above observations, this appeal is disposed of with no order as to costs.

10. However, we make it clear that this order shall not stand in the way of the appellant to work out his grievances with HILTRON in appropriate proceedings.

MARCH 03, 2016
Amarjeet Jolly & Anr vs Corporation Bank

4. The appeal was being argued before this Court for some time and on 01.02.2016, an offer was made by the appellants that they would pay an amount of US $12,000 with the applicable exchange rate as on 01.01.1988, together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. That offer was reportedly not acceptable to the Bank.

6. Therefore, this appeal is disposed of, as agreed to by both the sides, as per the following terms :-

ii) The amount shall be deposited with the respondent-Bank within a period of 9 months from today.

iii) Needless to say that the liability to pay the interest will continue till the amounts are deposited.

iv) In case the amounts are not deposited as above, this Judgment shall stand automatically recalled and the appeal shall stand dismissed.

March 03, 2016.
Kerala State Road Transport ... vs N.K. Byjumon

2. The respondent, who has now appeared in the case, is permitted to withdraw the amount of Rs.10,000/- (rupees ten thousand only) deposited by the petitioner with the Registry.

3. The petitioner is directed to pay a further sum of Rs.10,000/- (rupees ten thousand only) to the respondent by way of costs.

5. Looking at the fact that the respondent has been compensated and the delay was due to carelessness of an employee of the appellant-Corporation, who is being departmentally dealt with, we set aside the impugned judgment passed by the High Court and remit -2- the matter to the High Court so that the same can be decided afresh on merits.

6. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of as allowed.

7. The parties shall appear before the High Court on 28th March, 2016 for further hearing of the case.
Bangalore Devt.Auth vs N.Jayamma

The instant appeal, which has travelled to this Court, had its origin in a suit filed by the respondent in the Court of City Civil Judge, Bangalore. The said suit was filed by the respondent herein for declaration of title to the suit property situated in Sy. No. 76/1. It was claimed by the respondent that she had purchased the property on June 22, 1994 ad-measuring East to West – 60 ft. and North to South – 50 ft. (hereinafter referred to as the 'suit property') from its previous owner and had constructed a building thereupon. The aforesaid suit property, which was part of Sy. No. 76/1 comprising 4 acres 31 guntas (hereinafter referred to as the 'scheduled property'), was acquired by the State Government for Bangalore Development Authority – appellant herein (for short, 'the BDA'), for which Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act') was issued on December 15, 1984 followed by a declaration under Section 6 of the Act on October 29, 1986. Purportedly, possession thereof was handed over to the BDA on August 30, 1988 vide Mahazar (Exhibit D-4). However, it appears that the actual possession of the suit property remained with the original owner who then sold it to the respondent in the year 1994, as stated above. It is on this basis that the respondent filed the suit on the ground that she was in possession of the said property for more than 12 years even after the acquisition thereof by the State Government and, in this manner, she had perfected her title by adverse possession. Thus, the relief claimed in the suit was for declaration that the respondent had become the owner thereof.

As a result, the appeal stands allowed resulting in dismissal of the suit filed by the respondent in the trial court. In the facts and circumstances of this case, there shall be no order as to costs.

MARCH 10, 2016.
Andhra Pradesh State Council Of Higher ... vs Union Of India And Ors. Etc

Leave granted in the Special Leave Petitions.

The relevant facts which are required for us to appreciate the rival legal contentions are stated in brief hereunder:

For the reasons stated supra, the common impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court of judicature at Hyderabad for the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh in Writ Petition Nos. 1873 and 2882 of 2015, upholding the freezing of the bank accounts of APSC being unsustainable in law is liable to be set aside and set aside. Accordingly, the appeals filed by the State of Andhra Pradesh and APSC are allowed.

Having allowed the appeal filed by APSC, we also hold that the action of freezing of the bank accounts of APSC is bad in law on account of the fact that what has been frozen is not just the pre bifurcation amount, but also the amounts collected by APSC for the period after the bifurcation in relation to the thirteen districts of the successor State of Andhra Pradesh. Accordingly, APSC must be allowed to operate their bank accounts in respect of the thirteen districts which fall within State of Andhra Pradesh now, in which the amounts collected post the date of bifurcation have been deposited. The assets of APSC of the undivided State of Andhra Pradesh, that is, assets existing up to the date of bifurcation may be divided between the two successor States in the population ratio of 58:42, as provided under Section 2(h) of the Reorganisation Act, 2014, if the two successor States are agreeable to the same. If the two successor States are unable to arrive at an agreement, the Central Government may constitute a committee, which may be directed to arrive at an agreement, in accordance with the provisions of the Reorganisation Act, 2014 within a period of two months from the date such representation is made to the Central Government.

All pending applications are disposed of. No costs. ………………………………………J. [V. GOPALA GOWDA] ………………………………………J. [ARUN MISHRA] New Delhi, Dated: March 18, 2016
Pareshbhai Annabhai Sonvane vs State Of Gujarat & Ors

The sole appellant was accused no.2 before the Sessions Judge, Surat in Sessions Case No.278/2008 along with three other co-accused for offences under Sections 395, 397 and 504 of the IPC. The trial court found sufficient evidence against accused nos.1 to 3 and accordingly convicted them for the offence under Section 395 of the IPC while holding that prosecution could not establish the other charges. Considering that the value of the alleged loot including cash and mobile was only Rs.16,550/- and the young age of the accused, the trial court inflicted rigorous imprisonment of only one year along with fine of Rs.100/-. In the trial court judgment dated 24.08.2011 the age of the appellant has been recorded as 24 years and as such on the date of the alleged occurrence in July 2008 he would be about 21-22 years of age.

The State of Gujarat opted to prefer Criminal Appeal No.1463 of 2011 under Section 377 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to seek enhancement of sentence imposed on the three convicts including the appellant. By the impugned judgment and order under appeal dated 21.09.2015 the High Court came to the view that the trial court had rightly convicted the accused but had erred in imposing a sentence of imprisonment which was clearly on the lower side. The High Court allowed the appeal to the extent of enhancing the sentence to five years of rigorous imprisonment along with the fine imposed by the trial court.

After hearing the arguments of both the sides we are not persuaded to interfere with the conviction of the appellant under Section 395 IPC and hence his conviction is affirmed. However, for the same very reasons as recorded by the trial court and finding that nothing was recovered from him, we are persuaded to reduce the sentence of imprisonment. We have been informed on the basis of facts mentioned in the Surrender Certificate dated 19.02.2016 available on record that the appellant has now remained in jail for three years and two months on account of continuous incarceration since his surrender on 28.07.2008. The certificate further discloses that fine of Rs.100/- has also been paid. In the facts of the case and considering the period already undergone by the appellant, we reduce the period of sentence imposed upon the appellant to the period already undergone, i.e., three years and two months of actual imprisonment. In case he is not required to be kept in prison in connection with any other matter, he should be released in the present matter forthwith. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent only.

March 18, 2016.
D Sudhakar vs State Of A P And Ors

7. The Tribunal by its Order dated 28th February, 2011 partly allowed the original application filed by the petitioner. The Tribunal held that the short listing process by the Selection Committee was not at all satisfactory and therefore the short listing of the 15 candidates was set aside as the selection was not fair.

10. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner preferred Writ Petition No. 18563 of 2011 in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. By its judgment and order dated 20th February, 2014 the High Court dismissed the writ petition (impugned).

18. Under these circumstances, we are of the opinion that apart from the fact that this petition raises questions regarding the interpretation of Section 33 of the PWD Act read with the Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by Selection) Regulations, 1997 and the Indian Administrative Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1954 this petition also relates to the interpretation of the Office Memorandum dated 29th December, 2005 and the Office Memorandum dated 3rd December, 2013. Since all these issues are inter-linked with the pending Civil Appeals, we are of the view that for a comprehensive decision in the matter and to settle the controversy, it will be more appropriate if leave is granted to the petitioner and this matter is tagged along with C.A. No. 7295 of 2012 and C.A. No. 11895 of 2014.

19. Accordingly, we grant leave and tag this appeal with C.A.No.7295 of 2012 and C.A.No.11895 of 2014.