L-NLProc/TathyaNyaya-and-FactLegalLlama-NyayaScrape-Datasets huggingface dataset:
Sanghi Brothers (Indore) Pvt.Ltd vs Sanjay Choudhary & Ors

3. Background facts as projected by appellant in a nutshell are as follows:

11. The present case is not one where the High Court ought to have interfered with the order of framing the charge. As rightly submitted by learned counsel for the appellant, even if there is a strong suspicion about the commission of offence and the involvement of the 6 accused, it is sufficient for the court to frame a charge. At that stage, there is no necessity of formulating the opinion about the prospect of conviction. That being so, the impugned order of the High Court cannot be sustained and is set aside. The appeal is allowed.
C.Jacob vs Director Of Geology & ...

R. V. RAVEENDRAN J., IA 1 is allowed and the delay of 56 days condoned. We find no merit in this Special Leave Petition. However, as the questions raised in this petition arise repeatedly, we propose to pass a reasoned order after referring to the relevant facts.

2. The petitioner joined service as a Drill Helper in June, 1967, in the Regional Mining Cell, Trichy, in the erstwhile State Geology branch of Department of Industries and Commerce, State of Tamil Nadu. According to him, his services were terminated in the year 1982, in pursuance of 2 a show cause notice dated 8.7.1982. Nearly eighteen years later, the petitioner gave representations dated 5.5.2000 and 21.7.2000 to the first respondent requesting that he may be taken back into service. As the enclosure (show cause notice dated 8.7.1982) to the said representation was incomplete, the first respondent called upon him to send the complete document. Instead of complying with the said request, the petitioner approached the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal seeking a direction to the first respondent to dispose of his representation. The Administrative Tribunal disposed of the said application on 19.12.2002, without notice to the respondents, with a direction to the Director of Geology & Mining (first respondent), to consider petitioner's representation dated 21.7.2000 and pass an order thereon within four months. In compliance with the said direction, the first respondent considered and rejected the petitioner's representations by order dated 9.4.2002. The relevant portions of the said order referring to the facts, is extracted below :

In this office letter (dated 28.8.2000) he has been requested to produce the copies of the memorandum and other records issued by the State Geologist to him. But, he has not produced the copies of the same. The erstwhile State Geology Branch of the Department of Industries and Commerce was upgraded as a separate Department of Geology and Mining and is functioning as 4 a separate department with effect from 14.4.1983. The Government issued order dated 15.3.1989 permanently transferring the officers and staff of the State Geology Branch to the new Department of Geology and Mining. The name of Thiru C. Jacob is not finding a place in this GO..............

Pension for service of less than 20 years

18. Special leave petition is therefore dismissed as hav- ing no merit.

....................................................................J [R. V. Raveendran] ...........................................................................J [Lokeshwar Singh Panta] New Delhi;

October 3, 2008.
Rajesh Kumar vs State Of H.P

1 Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of the Division Bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court holding the appellant and one Surjit Singh guilty of offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the `IPC') and each sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- with default stipulation. By order dated 19.2.2001, the Special Leave Petition was dismissed qua Surjit Singh.

Shri Kailash Chand (PW-22) who at the relevant time was posted as Station House Officer, Police Station, Gagret recorded the information received by him from PW-11 Dr. N.K. Bhardwaj in daily diary register, a copy of which was marked Ext. PQ. He immediately rushed to the hospital and recorded the statement (Ext. PJ) of PW-14 which was sent to Police Station, Gagret for registration of the case, on the basis of which First Information Report No.12/98 came to be registered. The F.I.R. later on transferred to Police Station, Amb marked (Ext. PT) because during the investigation the place where the occurrence took place was found within the jurisdiction of Police Station, Amb. The post mortem of the dead body of Ravinder Kumar was conducted by Dr. S.P. Kanwar (PW13), Medical Officer, District Hospital, Una who found the following injuries on his body;

6. There was contused lacerated wound 1cm x 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm. on the proximal 1/3rd of the right forearm on the medial aspect. After investigation charge sheet was placed. Since the accused persons denied their involvement in the offence, trial was held. Twenty three witnesses were produced to further the prosecution version. The trial court held that the evidence of the eye witnesses, more particularly PWs 14 & 15, clearly established that common intention of the accused persons was to cause death of the accused. Accordingly conviction was recorded. Before the High Court it was submitted that the evidence of PWs 14 & 15 do not inspire confidence. In any event so far as the present appellant is concerned Section 34 5 IPC has no application. The High Court did not find any substance in the aforesaid stand and dismissed the appeal. Both Surjit Singh and the present appellant filed special leave petition. Special Leave petition was dismissed so far as the Surjit Singh is concerned, as noted above.

12. The appellant has to be convicted on the basis of injuries inflicted by him. According to us the appropriate conviction would be under Section 326 IPC and custodial sentence of three years would meet the ends of justice.

13. The appellant who has been released on bail shall surrender to custody forthwith to serve remainder of sentence, if any.

14. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.
Southern Sales & Services & Ors vs Sauermilch Design & Handels Gmbh

4. In the instant case, the respondent filed a suit under Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 4 hereinafter referred to as "the Code", for recovery of a sum of Euro 757,885.42 equivalent to Rs.3,86,52,156.42 in Indian currency. On being served with Summons for Judgment in terms of Rule 3, Sub-rule (4), of Order 37 of the Code, the petitioner filed an affidavit providing various details which made out triable issues in the suit. On the basis of the said affidavit the learned XXXI Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore, granted conditional leave to the petitioner to defend the suit.

6. The High Court held that despite the admission of the defendant regarding the amount claimed by the respondent in the suit, since the same had not been paid to the plaintiff/respondent, it would be in the fitness of things to direct the defendant/appellant to deposit a substantial portion of the amount which had been admitted to be due and payable even if the defence set up by the defendant/appellant was not sham, moonshine or illusory. The High Court accordingly modified the unconditional leave granted to the defendant/appellant to defend the suit and restricted the same to the claim of the plaintiff-company to the amount excluding the total demand of Euro 3,20,967.51 covered under the documents Annexures G-1 and G-2. The High Court directed that leave to defend the suit in respect of the claim of the plaintiff-company for the said amount of Euro 3,20,967.51 would be subject to the condition that the defendant/appellant firm would deposit in the trial court 55% of the said amount within eight weeks from the date of the orders of the High Court.

18. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.

19. There will be no order as to costs.
C.R. Patil vs State Of Gujarat And Ors

4. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that the appellant herein is engaged in the business of construction and he is a Director and majority shareholder of M/s Abhishek Estates Pvt. Ltd. (`M/s AEPL' for short). On May 01, 2000, the appellant requested Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation (`GIDC' for short), Surat for 3 allotment of land for the purpose of development of Housing Zone. The land was allotted and permission was granted by Surat Urban Development Authority (SUDA) for construction of houses. An application made by M/s AEPL to the Diamond Jubilee Co-operative Bank Ltd., Surat (in liquidation), respondent NO. 4 herein to advance a loan was granted and substantial amount was paid by respondent No. 4 to M/s AEPL. The Bank was ordered to be closed as per the direction of the Reserve Bank of India. Respondent No.4 Bank filed Lavad Case NO.1180 of 2002 against M/s. AEPL and others for recovery of more than Rs.51 crores. Criminal proceedings were also initiated for various offences under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the appellant herein was arrested in connection with those offences.

5. The appellant remained in jail for quite some time. He made applications for release on bail. When the matters came up before the High Court of Gujarat, a prayer was 4 made to enlarge the appellant on temporary bail. The Court granted the prayer by an interim order, dated July 25, 2003 on certain terms and conditions. One of the conditions imposed on the appellant reads thus;

6. The appellant was accordingly enlarged on bail during the pendency of the petition. At the final hearing, however, the High Court dismissed the petitions and vacated interim relief which was granted earlier. Resultantly, the relief which was granted in favour of the appellant came to an end and he was taken in custody again.

16. In our opinion, the appellant is entitled to the relief sought. In view of full settlement between the parties and payment made by the appellant under OTS now nothing is due and payable by the appellant to the respondent No.4-Bank. Accordingly, the properties are ordered to be released. Title Deeds and documents, if any, pertaining to the said property be handed over and returned to the appellant by respondent No.4-Bank. The appellant is also relieved of the undertaking given to the Court.

17. The appeals are allowed to the above extent.

October 3, 2008.
Bur Singh & Anr vs State Of Punjab

2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court upholding the conviction of the appellants for conviction punishable under Section 302 for appellant no.1 and Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the `IPC') for appellant no.2 while directing acquittal of co-accused Parminder Singh. Four persons faced trial. The learned Sessions Judge Gurdaspur directed acquittal of Lakhbir Singh, while holding the present appellants and Parminder Singh to be guilty of offence punishable under Section 302 and Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC as noted above. By the impugned judgment the High Court as noted above directed acquittal of the co-accused while confirming the conviction and sentence so far as the appellants are concerned.

In order to substantiate the accusations twelve witnesses were examined. PWs 2&3 were stated to be eye witnesses. The accused persons abjured guilt as noted above and in the examination under Section 313 of the Code stated that they had been falsely implicated. Acquitted accused Parminder Singh stated that he was staying at the different State and was not present at the date. Four witnesses were examined to further the defence version about false implication. The trial Court found the evidence of PWs 2 & 3 to be cogent and credible and recorded conviction. In appeal, High Court upheld their conviction.

16. Looked at from any angle, the appeal is without merit, deserves dismissal, which we direct. Appellant No.1 was exempted from surrendering considering his age. Both the accused appellants shall surrender to custody forthwith to serve remainder of sentence.

17. Appeal is dismissed.
Union Of India & Anr vs G. Rajanna & Ors

Questioning correctness of the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court the Union of India and the Director, Central Poultry Breeding Farm Hassarghatta, Bangalore having filed these appeals. The controversy lies within a very narrow campass. The -2- respondents who were working as Malis (Gardeners) claimed promotion on the basis of office memorandum dated 13th September, 1991 as modified by the office memorandum dated 6th November, 1991. Both the office memorandums related to Career advancements of Group 'C' and Group 'D' employees. Originally the employees were given a scale of pay of Rs.950/- - Rs.1540/- with a starting pay of Rs.950/- with effect from 1st April, 1991. Subsequently, it was clarified that they were entitled to lesser scale of pay i.e. Rs.775/- - Rs.1025/-. The basis of the claim of the employees was sub-para (f) of the office memorandum dated 13th September, 1991 which reads as under :-

In our considered view, the judgment of the High Court is based on a correct interpretation of the relevant clause of the office Memorandum and no interference is called for in these appeals. Hence the appeals fail and are dismissed but without any order as to costs.
Union Of India & Ors vs Sukhen Chandra Das

3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the writ petitioner-respondent herein was enrolled as Constable on 08.11.1991 in Central Reserve Police Force (for short `the CRPF'). Thereafter, the appellants started the process of verification of the character and antecedents of the respondent from civil authorities as required under the provisions of the relevant rules. The District Magistrate-cum-Collector (West Tripura) by its letter dated 03.06.1994 informed the appellants that the respondent along with six others was charge-sheeted by Sonamura Police Station Case No. 91 dated 24.12.1990 for offences under Sections 148/149/380 and 436, IPC. The respondent, at the time of enrolment in CRPF, did not disclose the said fact in column No. 12 (a) and (b) of Verification Roll of CRPF [see Rule 14(B)]. On receipt of the reply from the District Magistrate-cum-Collector, the Commandant 9th Batallion CRPF vide order dated 23.06.1994 in purported exercise of the power under Rule 5(1) of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Services) Rules, 1965 terminated the services of the respondent.

4. The respondent preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The IGP N/S, having heard the respondent and having examined and verified the record, has found no substance in the defence of the respondent and by reasoned order dated 12.07.1995 rejected the appeal. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent preferred Civil Rule No. 139/1996 which was decided by the learned Single Judge on 01.08.2001 holding that the order of termination of the respondent was passed on alleged misconduct and the same could not be treated as an order simplicitor covered by the CCS (Temporary Services) Rules, 1965. The learned Single Judge, however, while allowing the writ petition of the respondent, reserved liberty to the appellants to initiate departmental proceedings against the respondent for alleged misconduct as revealed in the order of the appellate authority.

10. In the result, for the aforesaid reasons, the judgment and order of the High Court dated 23.03.2005 passed by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No. 88/2002 upholding the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 01.08.2001 in Civil Rule No. 139/1996 is quashed and set aside. The appeal is accordingly allowed with no order as to costs.
State Of Haryana vs Sher Singh

3. It is the case of the prosecution that on 13.2.1990, one Kanshi Ram (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') was hit by a bus belonging to Haryana Roadways while coming from the side of the Bus Stand. Being hit by the bus, Kanshi Ram fell down and was removed to the hospital where he died. It was alleged that respondent was driving the offending vehicle. Accordingly, FIR was lodged and investigation was undertaken. On completion thereof, chargesheet was filed. As accused pleaded innocence, trial was held. Nine witnesses were examined to further the prosecution version. Out of them, PW-9 Narender Singh was stated to be an eyewitness. PW-9 who was supposed to be an eyewitness did not support the prosecution version but placing reliance on the statement of the deceased before ASI Mahender Singh (PW-8), which was treated to be a dying declaration, the Trial Court found the accused guilty and sentenced him, as aforesaid. The appeal was dismissed. In the revision, the primary stand was that the so-called eyewitness having not supported the prosecution case and there being no material to show that the vehicle was being driven in a rash and/or negligent manner, the conviction cannot be maintained. The High Court found that the so-called eyewitness did not support the prosecution version. Additionally, in the dying declaration there was no specific mention about rash and negligent driving. Therefore, the acquittal was directed.
Iqbal & Ors vs State Of Karnataka

The prosecution case has been supported by four eye-witnesses, Jabeer Pasha [P.W.2], Anwar [P.W.3], Saleem [P.W.4] and Amjad [P.W.5], out of whom P.W.2 is the informant himself and is an injured witness. All the eye-witnesses have consistently supported the prosecution case and their evidence is corroborated by medical evidence. In our view, High Court was quite justified in convicting the appellants under Section 304 Part-I I.P.C.

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in-part and, while upholding the conviction of the appellants, sentence of imprisonment awarded against them is reduced to the period already undergone by them.

The appellants, who are in custody, are directed to be released forthwith, if not required in connection with any other case.
Manoj Sharma vs State & Ors

6. On the basis of the above FIR charges were framed against the appellant and co-accused Man Mohan Sharma.

7. The appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court for quashing the FIR on the ground that the matter had been compromised between the complainant and the accused. In that writ petition an affidavit was filed by the complainant stating that in view of the settlement between the parties he is withdrawing the allegations against both the writ petitioners and he is also withdrawing the FIR. As per the amicable settlement a sum of Rs. 45,000/- would be paid to the appellant Manoj Sharma and a further sum of Rs. 45,000/- would be paid to the co-accused Man Mohan Sharma.

10. We, accordingly, allow the appeal and set aside the order of the High Court and quash the criminal proceedings pending before the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Karkardooma Court, Delhi, in FIR No.50 of 1997 dated 31st January, 1997 P.S. Vivek Vihar (East Delhi).

1. I have read the judgment of my learned brother Hon. Kabir, J. and I respectfully agree with his conclusion that the appeal should be allowed and 10 the judgment of the High Court as well as the criminal proceedings pending before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Karkardooma Court, Delhi in FIR No. 50 of 1997 dated 31st January, 1997 P.O. Vivek Vihar (East Delhi) against the appellant should be quashed.

8. However, the Delhi High Court by the impugned judgment dated 17.8.2007 rejected the writ petition and hence this appeal.

25. With these observations, I respectfully agree with my learned brother Hon'ble Kabir J. that this appeal is to be allowed and the criminal proceedings in question are to be quashed. Appeal allowed. No costs.

................................J. (Markandey Katju) New Delhi;

16th October, 2008
Babulal Khandelwal & Ors vs Balkishan D. Singhvi & Ors

2. On 14th February, 2005, the Respondent No.1, Balkishan D. Sanghvi, filed suit No. 457 of 2005 in the Bombay High Court for administration of the Estate of his deceased parents Dwarkadas Sanghvi and Vimlaben Sanghvi, who were also the parents of the Respondents No.1, 2, 3 and 6. While the Respondents Nos. 2 1, 2 and 6 are the sons of the deceased, the Respondent No.3 is their daughter and the Respondents Nos. 4 and 5 are her husband and son respectively.

3. During the pendency of the suit, the Respondent No.1/Plaintiff filed Chamber Summons No.1270 of 2005 for impleading the Appellants herein as parties to the suit and to challenge the alienation of two properties, one to Prolific Consultancy Services (Mumbai) Pvt. Ltd. and the other to the Appellants herein. By judgment and order dated 13th February, 2006, the learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court allowed the Chamber Summons and permitted the plaint to be amended as a result whereof the appellants herein stood impleaded as defendants Nos.7 to 12 in the suit on the ground that they were necessary parties to the suit, despite their objection that the Respondent No.8 is a company in which the Appellants were only 3 share-holders and that they were in no way related to any of the parties to the suit.

13. We, therefore, have little hesitation in holding that the High Court had not committed any error in allowing the amendments to the plaint which had the effect of impleading the appellants as parties to the administration suit filed by the respondent No.1 and permitting the respondent No.1 to question the transactions entered into by the owners of the Estate with third parties. The order of the High Court does not warrant any interference and the appeal must, therefore, be dismissed.

14. We, accordingly, dismiss the appeal and affirm the judgment and order of the High Court allowing the amendments to the plaint for impleading the appellants as parties to the administration suit filed by the respondent No.1 and for scrutinizing the transactions which were alleged to have been concluded by the parents of the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 during their lifetime.

15. There will, however, be no order as to costs.

_________________J.

(Altamas Kabir) _________________J.

(Markandey Katju) New Delhi Dated: October 16,2008
Renu Kunta Mallaiah vs State Of A.P

1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissing the Criminal Revision Petition filed by the appellant. The accused faced trial for alleged commission of offences punishable under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the `IPC'). The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jagtial, found the accused guilty and convicted him to sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and a sum of Rs.4,000/- was imposed as fine with default stipulation. In appeal the first appellate Court reduced the sentence to six months but maintained the fine and the default stipulation. The revision petition as noted above was dismissed.

4. Appeal is allowed.
Sunil vs State Of Maharashtra

2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench dismissing the appeals filed by several accused persons. The present appeal is by original accused No. 6 1 (hereinafter referred to as the A6). He was convicted for various offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the `IPC') and sentenced to undergo custodial imprisonment and fine with default stipulation. The High Court dismissed the appeal so far as the present appellant is concerned, we are not concerned with the other appeals.

7. In view of the aforesaid infirmities the inevitable conclusion is that the prosecution has failed to establish the accusations so far as the present appellant is concerned. He is acquitted of the charges and his conviction is set aside. The bail bonds executed by him for giving effect to the order of bail passed by this Court's order dated 25.1.2008 shall stand discharged.

8. Appeal is allowed.