L-NLProc/TathyaNyaya-and-FactLegalLlama-NyayaScrape-Datasets huggingface dataset:
Sanjay Sitaram Khemka vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors

The Petitioner herein is a businessman. He had been carrying on business in the name and style of "JEWELS-9". His business premises is situate at 504-D, Crystal Plaza, New Link Road, Andheri West, Mumbai- 400 053. He claims himself to be a manufacturer of jewellery. He claims himself to be an office bearer of the "Jewellers Association of Greater Andheri". The contention of the petitioner was that respondent Nos. 3 and 4 viz., M.A.K. Sheikh and Avinash Dharamadhikari herein had entered into a criminal conspiracy against him as he had exposed their illegal acts and corrupt practices in the media on behalf of the "JEWELLERS ASSOCIATION OF GREATER ANDHERI" in furtherance whereof they registered five false cases against him during the period 25.9.2003 to 16.10.2003. During the purported investigation of the said cases, the photographs of the petitioner were allegedly published in the media with a news story that he was a hard-core criminal. Details of the publications in various newspapers are contained in sub-paragraphs (a) to (g) of the Special Leave Petition. The said articles were said to have been published in different newspapers owned/published by respondent Nos. 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and

Before adverting to the contentions raised by the Petitioner who appeared in person, we may notice a disturbing fact. The Petitioner had filed a writ petition being Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 2 of 2006 on the self same grounds before this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India which was, however, dismissed on 20.02.2006. In this case, a detailed counter-affidavit had been filed on behalf of the State of Maharashtra affirmed by one Mr. Pradeep, Inspector of Police, attached to the D.N. Nagar Police Station. The said deponent has affirmed that various Complaint Petitions came to be filed against the petitioner. It is stated that during investigation of the said cases several facts in regard to involvement of the petitioner in connection with several offences came to light. He has stated:-

Furthermore, the Petitioner had also filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. The Petitioner at the time of issuance of notice in this matter did not point out the said fact.

In view of the conduct of the Petitioner also, he is not entitled to any equitable relief in the petition for special leave.

For the reasons aforementioned, we do not find any merit in this petition. It is dismissed accordingly.
Ram Bachan Rai & Ors vs Ram Udar Rai & Ors

A brief reference to the factual aspect would suffice.

The respondents-plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession in which the appellants had appeared and filed a written statement. The suit was decreed ex parte as the defendants did not appear on the date fixed. The ex parte decree in the concerned suit was passed on 3.5.1976. No appeal was, however, filed against the aforesaid judgment and decree. The present appellants who are the judgment debtors filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the ex parte decree which was dismissed for default on 14.7.1978. The said application was not restored by the trial Court and a Miscellaneous Appeal filed also stood dismissed on 10.1.1987. The Civil revision filed against the order of dismissal was also dismissed on 6.4.1987. At no stage any stay was granted by any Court and the respondents as decree holders filed an application for execution on 5.4.1991. According to the appellants, only a symbolic possession was taken as no notice as mandatorily required to be served in terms of Order XXI Rule 22 or Order XXI Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure was ever served on the judgment debtors. When the judgment debtors came to know of the symbolic possession taken by the decree holders, they filed objection under Section 47 CPC saying that the decree was not legally enforceable as it was barred by time.

For the reasons aforesaid, the application for execution filed on 5.4.1991 was clearly time barred having been filed beyond the period of twelve years prescribed under Article 136 of the Limitation Act. Accordingly the High Court as well as the Executing Court committed illegality in coming to a conclusion that it was not barred by limitation. Therefore, the inevitable result is that the order passed by the High Court and the Executing Court cannot be maintained and are set aside. The appeal is allowed. The application for execution stands rejected. No costs.
Lt. Governor, Nct & Ors vs Ved Prakash @ Vedu

2. 123 02.03.84 452/324/34 IPC Kalyan Puri

4. 73 19.02.91 307/506/34 IPC Kalyan Puri

9. 310 12.09.09 452/308/34 IPC Trilok Puri

10. 396 29.10.01 458/323/427/506 IPC Trilok Puri Whereas the Respondent was convicted in relation to the instances and/ or the first information reports detailed at Sr. No. 4 and 9 hereof, in other cases, he was acquitted except in the cases detailed at Sr. Nos. 1 and 10 under Sections 308/34 and 458/323/427/506 of the Indian Penal Code respectively which are said to be still pending.

Respondent filed a show cause. He also examined witnesses on his own behalf. According to him, he had been implicated in many false cases. As the officials of the Delhi Police were inimically disposed towards his brother, they had implicated him in many false cases without any just or sufficient cause.

Although it is not possible for us to lay down the law in precise terms as the facts of each case are to be considered on their own merit, we have endeavoured to lay down the broad propositions of law. We would, therefore, record our disagreement with the view of the High Court.

The period of externment has since expired. In that view of the matter, we direct that the impugned order of the High Court need not be given effect to.

For the reasons aforementioned, this appeal is allowed and disposed of with the aforementioned observations. There shall be no order as to costs.
Ashok Kumar & Ors vs State Of Tamil Nadu

Before the learned Sessions Judge, inter alia, a plea was taken that another First Information Report had been lodged in regard whereto an entry had been made in the General Diary. However, the same had not been produced. The learned Sessions Judge upon consideration of the evidences brought on record including those of the eye-witnesses, namely, PW-1 and PW-2 found the prosecution case to have been proved beyond all reasonable doubt and recorded a judgment of conviction against all the accused persons. On an appeal being preferred before the High Court, the High Court did not believe that part of the prosecution case involving A-5 and A-6 who admittedly had left the village at 6.00 a.m. on 29.10.1993 as also that of A-7 who allegedly had come to the scene and distributed the weapons to the appellants herein. They were, therefore, acquitted. During the pendency of the appeal before the High Court, A-6 expired and his appeal thus was held to have abated. The appeal filed by the appellants herein before the High Court, however, was dismissed.

The Investigating Officer on the date of occurrence did not find the appellants in the village. They were arrested after a few days from another village.

We are, for the reasons aforementioned, of the opinion that the learned trial Court and the High Court having considered the prosecution case from all angles, no case has been made out for our interference therewith. The appeals are, therefore, dismissed.
Hero Vinoth (Minor) vs Seshammal

Material facts in a nutshell are as follows :

The High Court noted that the questions which need consideration were the questions a & d. The High Court found that the approach of the Trial court and the first appellate court were clearly erroneous as they failed to distinguish between the easement of necessity and an easement acquired by grant. Considering the relevant clause in the Partition deed it was held that the right of way given was one of grant and not an easement of necessity. Accordingly the Second Appeal was allowed and the plaintiff's suit was dismissed.

(iii) The general rule is that High Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of the Courts below. But it is not an absolute rule. Some of the well recognized exceptions are where (i) the courts below have ignored material evidence or acted on no evidence;

The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
Sanjay Kumar And Ors vs Narinder Verma And Ors

(b) 15% by promotion from amongst three years Diploma Holders in Electric/Electronic Engineering from Recognised Polytechnic Institution having at least 5 years service in Class-III category `A'.

B. The following Notes shall be added after note (2) at the end of the Part (A) of the schedule :-

II and drawing pay at a stage lower then Rs. 1720 per month shall be entitled to refixation of his pay at the stage of Rs. 1720 per month on acquiring AMIE (section A&B) qualification'."

An advertisement was issued inviting applications for the post of Junior Engineers (Elect) Grade-II in the grade of Rs. 1400-2300 (pre-revised). The prescribed qualification for the said post was indicated in the advertisement as "BE/AMIE (A&B) India/ Diploma in Electric/Electronic Engg." Several candidates holding either a Diploma or a Degree, as prescribed, applied for the post. They were called for interviews for selection. Out of the 2229 candidates, who had applied, about 300 were selected and put on the Selection List and some more candidates were maintained on a waiting list. The result of the selection process was published on December 25, 1998. The selected candidates joined their duties some time in 1999. Out of the 300 selected candidates, 153 were Degree holders and 147 were Diploma holders. Some of the unsuccessful Degree holders challenged the Selection List by their writ petitions. The learned Single Judge who heard the writ petitions took the view that the writ petitioners having participated in the selection process and failed, were estopped from challenging the criteria adopted for the selection. The learned Single Judge also held that the criteria adopted had been made applicable uniformly to all the candidates; 80 points had been given for educational qualifications and 20 marks had been assigned for the viva voce, which was a proper method of selection and no objection could be taken thereto. In this view of the matter, by a judgment dated 30.4.1999 the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions.

Conclusion :

No order as to costs.
M/S. Centrotrade Minerals & Metal. Inc vs Hindustan Copper Ltd

(v) In any event, the Arbitrator did not give adequate opportunities of hearing and as the procedures prescribed under the ICC Rules were not followed, the award is liable to be set aside. The Arbitrator, having proceeded to prepare an award without the pleadings of the parties before him and considering only the first part of the written statement without waiting for the second part, misconducted himself at the proceeding. Had an opportunity been given, HCL could have cross-examined the expert on whose report, the award has been made.

It may not, therefore, be possible to hold that the 1996 Act contemplates that an arbitration award can be an admixture of domestic award and foreign award.

The appellate Arbitrator, therefore, could not have made an award in terms whereof a deemed decree passed by a court of India capable of being enforced in terms of Section 34 of the 1996 Act would stand set aside. The said award, therefore, is contrary to the legislative policy in India.

Illegality must go to the root of the matter and if the illegality is of trivial nature it cannot be held that award is against the public policy. Award could also be set aside if it is so unfair and unreasonable that it shocks the conscience of the court. Such award is opposed to public policy and is required to be adjudged void."

The question as regard the legislative policy vis-avis the arbitration agreement, therefore, will have to be considered from the said angle.

In the instant case, indisputably, the law which would govern the arbitration agreement is, in view of Clause 16 of the agreement, the Indian Law.

PRECEDENTS :

[Emphasis supplied] Although correctness of the said decision is open to question, we need not go into the same as at present advised.
Harigovind Yadav vs Rewa Sidhi Gramin Bank & Ors

The appellant and the third Respondent are working as clerk-cum-cashiers with the first respondent Bank (Rewa Sidhi Gramin Bank). The appellant is at serial No.9 and third respondent is at serial No.10 in the seniority list of senior clerks cum cashiers published on 31.7.1988. There is no dispute that the third respondent is junior to appellant in the cadre of clerk- cum-cashier.

4. The promotions were made by the Bank in accordance with the promotion policy contained in the circular dated 2.2.1989. The circular stated the object of the promotion policy thus:

3.3 Posting at difficult centers.

3.4 Performance/Appraisal Performance will be assessed through the appraisal reports annually received from his superiors in such form as may be specified by the Chairman from time to time. Marks will be awarded at the rate of 8 marks each for annual appraisal ratings for the appraisal of preceding 3 years period with the maximum of 24 marks and 16 marks for overall performance of the Staff (maximum 16 marks).

7. A learned Single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court allowed the Appellant's writ petition by order dated 13.10.1998 following the decision of this Court in B.V. Sivaiah & Ors. V. K. Addanki Babu [1998 (6) SCC 720]. He held that the promotions had been made not on the basis of seniority cum merit, but on the basis of merit-cum-seniority. Consequently, the promotion of third respondent herein and V.P. Singh were quashed with a direction to the Bank to consider the case of appellant for promotion to the post of Field Supervisor, along with other eligible candidates. The said order of the learned Single Judge was challenged by the third respondent and V. P. Singh in a Letters Patent Appeal which was dismissed on 2.12.1998. It is stated that the special leave petition filed against the decision in the Appeal was also dismissed.

Having regard to the factual background of the case, and having regard to the fact that even under the merit cum seniority basis adopted by the bank the appellant had secured high marks and he was denied promotion on the ground that he failed to secure minimum marks in the interview, there is no need to refer the matter for fresh consideration. With a view to do complete justice, in exercise of our power under Article 142 we hereby direct the first respondent bank to promote the appellant as a Field Supervisor, from the date the third defendant was promoted as Field Supervisor and place him above the third Respondent. However, he will be entitled to monetary benefits flowing from such promotion only prospectively, though the pay is to be refixed with reference to the retrospective date of promotion.

22. This appeal is allowed accordingly.
M/S Quinn India Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central ...

A Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated 4.6.1991 was issued by the Revenue directing the assessee to pay a sum of Rs. 1,24,094.45p. as central excise duty for the period May, 1986 to September, 1990 invoking larger period under Section 11A of the Act. During pendency of the proceedings, the Revenue drew another sample of the product of the assessee and sent it to the Central Revenue Control Laboratory (CRCL) at Delhi to the Chief Chemist for his opinion. The Chief Chemist vide his Report dated 2.4.1992 opined that the samples had surface active properties. The assessee filed its reply to the show cause notice, inter alia, contending that prior to 28.2.1986 they were classifying their product Penetrator 4893 under tariff item No. 68 and with the introduction of new tariff it was classified under heading 3801.19. On 5.5.1986, the assessee filed a fresh classification list based on the Report of the Chemical Analyst classifying the product under item No. 3402.90. They explained the process of manufacture of the product clarifying that the product is a wetting agent. Further, it was contended that the product was only an auxiliary aid for improving the penetration process of dye solvent. The Adjudicating Authority vide order dated 4.6.1991 relying upon the opinion of the Chemical Examiner's Test Report came to the conclusion that the classification of Penetrator manufactured by the assessee would fall under heading 3402.90. The show cause notice was, accordingly, discharged and the proceedings initiated in OR No. 74/91 Adjn. were dropped.

In our view, the impugned judgment of the Tribunal is clearly erroneous and unsustainable. In the circumstances, we find merit in the contentions urged on behalf of the appellant-assessee. We are also of the view that the Tribunal has erred in interfering with the Order-in-Appeal No. 2/94(H)(D) CE of the Collector (Appeals) dated 28.2.1994 and Order-in-Original No. 191/91 of the Assistant Collector dated 26.12.1991 In the result, we allow this appeal and set aside the impugned judgment of the Tribunal. Parties shall bear their own costs.
National Fertilizers Ltd. & Ors vs Somvir Singh

Despite such ban the Respondents had been appointed. Before such appointment the employment exchange was not intimated about the vacancy in terms of the provisions of Employment Exchange (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959 (for short "the 1959 Act"). Admittedly, no advertisement was also issued. According to the Respondent, he worked at the Shimla Office of the Appellant for a period of six months and, thus, he was entitled for recruitment in terms of Rule 1.5(g) of the Recruitment and Promotion Rules. Rule 1.5(g) of the Rules does not envisage regular recruitment but a recruitment on a contractual basis. The Respondent, thus, on his own showing was appointed on a contractual basis. It is trite that a person who obtained recruitment on contractual basis cannot claim regularisation in service. The Respondents herein filed applications for their recruitment without any vacancy having been notified. They were said to have been interviewed on 24.3.1991 by a purported Committee constituted by the General Manager. Appointment letters were issued on or about 9.4.1991. An advertisement was admittedly issued only on 30.11.1993 for the post of Peon-cum-Messenger.

Actions were initiated to fill up the vacant posts on permanent status by following the recruitment procedure. The Respondents were also granted an opportunity to file applications thereagainst. Relaxation of age to the extent of their services as temporary employees had also been granted.

In view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Constitution Bench, in our opinion, the impugned judgments cannot be sustained. They are set aside accordingly.

S/Shri Somvir Singh, Hansraj Benewal, Malkiat Singh, Ranjit Singh are said to be working. They may be relieved of their posts. We may, however, observe that their cases may be considered for future appointment and age bar, if any, in view of the policy decision of the Appellant itself may be relaxed to the extent they had worked. The salary or any remuneration paid to them, however, may not be recovered. This order, however, is being passed in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India keeping in view the principles embodied in Section 70 of the Contract Act. The appeals are allowed. No costs.
Ravinder Singh Gorkhi vs State Of U.P

The learned Sessions Judge, Bulandshahr pursuant to or in furtherance of the said direction allowed the parties to adduce evidence. Relying upon or on the basis of the school leaving certificate wherein the date of birth of the appellant was recorded to be 01.06.1963, he was held to be a minor on the date of occurrence i.e. 15.05.1979. The appellant in his statement recorded on 26.09.1979 disclosed his age to be 16 years; but the learned Sessions Judge opined that he appeared to be 18 years of age.

We are, however, not concerned in this case with such a situation.

Having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, we do not accept the report of the learned Sessions Judge.

For the reasons aforementioned, we do not find any merit in this appeal which is dismissed accordingly.
The General Secretary, South Indian ... vs The Managing Director, Kerala State ...

Background facts in a nutshell are as follows :

The appellantUnion filed statement before the Labour Court questioning the enquiry as well as the punishment imposed. The respondent-management in its pleadings raised three preliminary points:

In this case for finding the employee guilty, the enquiry officer relied on the evidence adduced in the enquiry and Labour Court itself found that the findings were not perverse. In such circumstances, the preliminary order of the Labour Court setting aside the enquiry on the ground that enquiry was conducted by an officer of the Management and he had made some observations in the enquiry report which were not warranted in the case is not a vitiating factor and these reasons are not sufficient to set aside the enquiry.

Above being the position the impugned judgment of the High Court does not suffer from any infirmity to warrant interference.

The appeal is sans merit and is dismissed. No costs.
U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. & Anr vs Sant Raj Singh & Ors

However, it was prescribed that in the event the laboratory Incharge, i.e., Supervisory Grade A-II were having the educational qualification of less than a Degree, he would be placed in Supervisory B Grade.

For the foregoing reasons, we are of the opinion that the impugned judgment cannot be sustained which is set aside accordingly. If any amount has been paid to the First Respondent, pursuant to or in furtherance of the judgment of the High Court, the same may be recovered from his salary in twelve equal monthly instalments.

These appeals are allowed accordingly. The parties shall pay and bear their own costs of the appeals.
State Bank Of Bikaner & Jaipur vs Om Prakash Sharma

Before the Labour Court, a contention was raised as to whether the provisions Section 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('the Act', for short) and Rule 77 of the Industrial disputes (Central) Rules, 1957 (ID Rules) have been violated, as one Vijay Kumar was said to be junior to him and was said to have been appointed in his place. A finding of fact was arrived at that the respondent failed to prove that after his termination of services Vijay Kumar was employed in his place in violation of Section 25H of the Act or otherwise. A finding, however, was arrived at that, no seniority record was maintained, as is required under the Rules. The appellant was, thus, found to have violated Rule 77 of the ID Rules. A further finding was arrived at that Rule 77 being mandatory in nature, the respondent was entitled to be reinstated in service with 50% of back wages.

In the instant case, the Award of the Labour Court suffers from an illegality, which appears on the face of the record. The jurisdiction of the Labour Court emanated from the order of the reference. It could not have passed an order going beyond the terms of the reference. While passing the Award, if the Labour Court exceeds its jurisdiction, the Award must be held to be suffering from a jurisdictional error. It was capable of being corrected by the High Court in exercise of its power of judicial review. The High Court, therefore, clearly fell in error in refusing to exercise its jurisdiction. The Award and the judgment of the High Court, therefore, cannot be sustained. Consequently, the appeal is allowed and the judgment of the High Court is set aside. The award is set aside to the extent of order of reinstatement with back wages. The writ petition filed by the appellant in the High Court is, thus, allowed.