L-NLProc/TathyaNyaya-and-FactLegalLlama-NyayaScrape-Datasets huggingface dataset:
State Of Karnataka vs A.B.Mahesha Etc.

2. The case of the prosecution revolves around the following circumstances:- (i) deceased Jagdeesha was last seen alive in the Company of A1 to A3- respondents; (ii) recovery of Car having Registration No. MEC 8344 and (iii) recovery of material objects from the houses of accused – one golden chain (MO-8) at the behest of A1, one Rado watch (MO-6) at the behest of A2 and one golden ring (MO-7) at the behest of A3.

3. The trial Court convicted all the accused under Section 302, 201, 392 and 397 IPC and sentenced to them, inter alia, to undergo life imprisonment. The High Court by the impugned judgment allowed the appeal 2 and set aside the conviction and acquitted all the accused.

8. Based on the above inconsistencies and contradictions when the High Court has acquitted the accused, this Court can not interfere with the acquittal unless there are serious and substantial error or compelling reasons warranting interference. We do not find any such serious infirmity in the judgment of the High Court warranting interference.

9. The appeals are, accordingly, dismissed.
State Of Karnataka vs Srinivasa

2. Case of the prosecution is that A-1 was allegedly having illicit relationship with second accused (since dead). On account of which there was alteration between A-1 (respondent) and the deceased Rajashree (wife) and the accused no. 1 is alleged to have strangulated the deceased to death. Relying upon the medical evidence (PW-7) and the evidence of PW-8 (father of the deceased), the trial Court convicted respondent no.1 under section 302 IPC and also sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment. 3. Insofar as the second accused, the trial court convicted her under Section 201 IPC and sentenced her to undergo three years imprisonment. (Since accused 2 no. 2 – Padmavathi is dead, Criminal Appeal No. 1497 of 2013 of accused no. 2 – Padmavathi has already been abated vide Court’s order dated 03.05.2016).

7. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
State Of Karnataka vs P.Ravikumar @ Ravi

1. Challenging the acquittal of respondent nos. 1 and 2 (accused 2 & 3) respectively for the offence under Section 302, IPC the State of Karnataka has preferred these appeals.

2. Case of the prosecution is that respondent no. 2 (A-3) D.B. Savitha - wife of the deceased - Mohan Kumar was allegedly having illicit relationship with accused no. 1. On account of such motive, Accused No. 1 and respondent nos. 1 and 2 herein (Accused Nos. 2 &

3) are alleged to have hatched a conspiracy in committing the murder of deceased Mohan Kumar- husband of A-3 (D.B. Savitha) on the ground that he used to harass her on the illicit relationship of A-1 and A-3. On 07.07.2003, the deceased Mohan Kumar left 2 the house in the morning for his fertilizer shop and did not return back. At about 9.30 p.m., the mother of the deceased came to know through PW-6 (Basavaraju) that the body of her son is lying on the side of the road and that he had allegedly fallen from the bike. The deceased was taken to the hospital where he declared dead. The law was set in motion and all the three accused were held under Section 302 IPC read with 120(B),IPC.

3. The trial court convicted all the accused under section 302 IPC read with 34 IPC and 120(B),IPC. On appeal, the High Court maintained the conviction of accused no. 1 and acquitted respondent nos. 1 & 2 (Accused nos. 2 and 3).

6. Insofar as respondent no. 1 (accused No. 2) - P. Ravi Kumar @ Ravi is concerned, the prosecution relies upon the extra judicial confession made to PW-2 (Auto Driver) who is stated to be the friend of accused nos. 1 and 2. PW-2 has stated that about 20 days prior to the date of incident, when he was 3 sitting in the auto, A-1 was with him and that accused no. 1 asked him to chase the deceased who was going on his motorcycle. PW-2 further stated that about 20 days later accused nos. 1 and 2 approached him and said to have made extra judicial confession that they had committed the murder of deceased Mohan Kumar to whom on earlier occasion they chased. Though PW-2 in his chief examination stuck to his version, when he was cross examined, he resiled from his earlier version and consequently PW-2 was treated hostile. When PW-2 resiled from his earlier statement, his statement recorded by PW-22 (Judicial Magistrate) under Section 164 Crl.PC may not be of any relevance; nor can it be considered as substantive evidence to base the conviction.

11. Upon appreciation of the evidence adduced by the prosecution in particular PW-2 , PW-20 and PW-4, the High Court has held that the guilt of A-2 and A-3 has not been established beyond reasonable doubt. We do not find any ‘compelling reason’ or ‘substantial infirmity’ warranting interference with the order of acquittal of respondent nos. 1 and 2 (Accused Nos. 2 and 3).

12. The appeals are, accordingly, dismissed.
Manphool Singh vs The State Of Haryana State Of Haryana

(2) During the pendency of the appeal, it is stated at the Bar that appellants no.1-Manphool Singh (A-1), No.2-Rattan Singh Digitally signed by MAHABIR SINGH Date: 2018.08.25 (A-2) 12:10:25 IST Reason: and No.4-Zile Singh (A-6) have died and the only contesting appellant i.e. appellant no.3-Surender Singh (A-5) is alive.

(3) Summary of the case and details are briefly stated. Case of the prosecution is that due to previous enmity, on 14 th March, 1994 when deceased no.1, Gopi Chand, and deceased no.2, Mahabir, were sitting at the house of Harpal, appellants and other co-accused (since acquitted) are alleged to have attacked the complainant party. Due to the said attack Gopi Chand (D-

1) and Mahabir (D-2) died. Accused, Surender Singh, Zile Singh and Rattan Singh are said to have attacked Gopi Chand (D-1) with lathis and accused-Manphool Singh fired at Mahabir (D-2) with a gun.

(4) To bring home the guilt of the accused before the trial court, the prosecution has examined three witnesses, namely, Harpal (PW-9), Manphool (PW-10) and Mahendra (PW-11) who have all stated that the accused have formed unlawful assemble on the fateful day and that Surender Singh (A-5), Zile Singh (A-6) and Rattan Singh (A-2) attacked Gopi Chand (D-1) with lathis and Manphool (A-1) fired at Mahabir (D-2). Their evidence to some extent is also corroborated by the medical evidence. Based on the evidence of the eye-witnesses, the recovery of weapons and the medical evidence, the trial court convicted the appellants under Sections 302 r/w 149 and 307 r/w 149 I.P.C. The trial court also convicted other accused Narender (A-3), Pawan Kumar (A-4) and Vijay (A-7) by invoking Section 149 I.P.C. On appeal, the High Court confirmed the conviction of the appellants herein but acquitted the accused, namely, Narender (A-3), Pawan Kumar (A-4) and Vijay (A-7). Being 3 aggrieved of the acquittal of the said accused, the State has preferred Criminal Appeal no.332 of 2009.

(12) The appeal is accordingly allowed.

(13) The appellant-Surender Singh is on bail. His bail bonds shall stand discharged.

Criminal Appeal NO(s).332 of 2009 :
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S Classic Binding Industries

12. Dissatisfied with the aforesaid order dated 11 th August, 2016, assessee filed appeal under Section 260A of the Act, 1961 before the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla raising therein substantial questions of law. The result of other assessees was also on almost same pattern, who filed their respective appeals as well. The High Court has decided the issue in a composite judgment, in favour of all these assessees. The High Court held Civil Appeal No. 7208 OF 2018 & Ors. Page 9 of 17 that there is no restriction that undertaking or enterprise established after 7th January, 2003 cannot carried out ‘Substantial Expansion’ cannot be carried out more than once as long as period of eligibility for claiming deduction under Section 80-IC of the Act. The High Court further held that since the language of Section is very clear, reliance cannot be placed on Circular No. 7 of 2003 issued by CBDT on this issue substantial questions of law were answered in favour of assessee and appeals were allowed with direction that with respect to each of the assessees the Assessing Officer shall carry out fresh assessment and pass appropriate orders.

10. CIT(A) following the decision of the jurisdictional tribunal in the case of M/s. Hycron Electronics Vs. ITO and other related cases, upheld the order of the Assessing Officer and dismissed the appeal of the assessee for 100% deduction. Feeling aggrieved, the assessee filed further appeal before the ITAT.

13. With the aforesaid factual background, we now proceed to answer the question of law formulated above.

(d) Total period of deduction is 10 years, which means 100% deduction for first 5 years from the initial Assessment Year and 25% (or 30% where the assessee is a company) for the next 5 years.

22. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold that after availing deduction for a period of 5 years @ 100% of such profits and gains from the ‘units’, the assessees would be entitled to deduction for remaining 5 Assessment Years @ 25% (or 30% where the assessee is a company), as the case may be, and not @ 100%. The question of law is, thus, answered in favour of the Revenue thereby allowing all these appeals.

No order as to costs.

AUGUST 20, 2018.

Civil Appeal No. 7208 OF 2018 & Ors. Page 17 of 17
Kehar Singh (D) Thr. Lrs. vs Nachittar Kaur

2) In order to appreciate the factual and legal controversy involved   in   the   appeal,   it   is   necessary   to   state   the   facts   in detail infra.

3)   The   appellants   are   the   legal   representatives   of   the original   plaintiff   whereas   the   respondents   are   the   legal representatives of the original defendants, who were brought on record during the  pendency of this litigation consequent upon the death of both plaintiff and the defendants.

4) The dispute in this appeal is between the son, father and the   purchasers   of   the   suit   land   from   father.   It   relates   to   a land   measuring   around   164   Kanals   1   Marla   entered   in rectangle No.46 Killa Nos. 8/1, 19/2, 21/2, 22/2, 23, 24 and rectangle No.52, Killa Nos. 1/2, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12/1, 13, 14,   15,   16,   17,   18,   23,   24,   25   entered   in   Khata   No.6/9 Jamabandi     1957­58   at   present   entered   in   Khata   No.2/2 Jamabandi   1962­63   situated   in   Village   Bhamian   Kalan, Tehsil Ludhiana (hereinafter referred to as  "suit land" ).

11) Defendant Nos.2 & 3 felt aggrieved and filed first appeal (C.A.   No.31   of   1967)   before   the   first   Appellate   Court.   By judgment/decree dated 11.06.1968, the first Appellate Court partly   allowed   the   defendants’   appeal   and   modified   the judgment/decree of the Trial Court.

The above are not the only indices for concluding as   to   whether   the   alienation   was   indeed   for   legal necessity,   nor   can   the   enumeration   of   criterion   for establishing   legal   necessity   be   copious   or   even predictable.   It must therefore depend on the facts of each case.   When, therefore, property is sold in order to fulfil tax obligations incurred by a family business, such alienation can be classified as constituting legal necessity.”  (see Hindu Law by Mulla “22nd Edition”)

29)   We   are,   therefore,   of   the   considered   opinion   that   the reasoning and the conclusion arrived at by the High Court is just and proper. We, therefore, concur with the view taken by the High Court calling for no interference. 13

30) In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.

August 20, 2018  14
Savatram Rampratap Mill vs Radheyshyam S/O Laxminarayan Goenkar ...

3. The appellant was originally a privately owned Company   situated   at   Akola   (Maharashtra).   It   was engaged in the business of manufacture of cotton. 2 This   Mill   was   later   taken   over   by   the   National Textile   Corporation   (Maharashtra)  Ltd., which  is  a subsidiary   of   NTC­a   Government   of   India Undertaking.

10. By impugned order, the Division Bench upheld the order passed by the Single Judge and dismissed the   appeal,   which   has   given   rise   to   filing   of   the present   appeal   by   way   of   special   leave   by   the appellant­Mills in this Court.

17. Before parting, we consider it apposite to state that   the   appellant   would   be   free   to   issue   fresh notices   to   respondent   No.1   under   the   Act   and 8 initiate   the   proceedings  for   their   eviction   from   the public premises at Akola.

18. If   the   respondents   are   dispossessed   on   the strength of any order passed by the Estate Officer, the possession will remain with the appellant but it will   be   subject   to   final   adjudication   of   the proceedings once initiated by the appellant.

19. Let   fresh   notices   be   issued   by   the   appellant within   one   month   from   the   date   of   this   order   to respondent   No.1   or/and   to   any   person(s),   who claim(s) to be in possession in relation to specified public premises under the Act.

21. The proceedings, once initiated, be completed expeditiously strictly in accordance with law.

22. With  these  directions, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.

IN CIVIL APPEAL NOs. 9700 & 9704 of 2014 In   view   of   the   above   order   passed   in   C.A. No.751   of   2008,   these   appeals   are   also   dismissed with the same directions.

August 20, 2018  10
K. Subba Rao . vs The State Of Telangana

1. Respondent No.2 submitted a complaint to the Chandanagar Police Station, Cyberabad, District Hyderabad on 20.12.2015 alleging harassment by her husband and his family members including the Appellants who are the maternal uncles of her husband. She also complained of the kidnapping of her son by the husband. On the basis of the said complaint, an FIR was registered under Sections Digitally signed by 498 A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred SANJAY KUMAR Date: 2018.08.21 17:25:48 IST Reason:

7. For the aforementioned reasons, we quash the proceedings qua the Appellants in Crime No.477 of 2015, 4 dated 20.12.2015 under Sections 498 A, 120 B, 420, 365 IPC registered at Chandanagar Police Station, Cyberabad before the Court of IX, Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally at Miyapur, Cyberabad, Commissionerate.

8. The appeal is accordingly allowed.
Suman Devi vs Manisha Devi

Dr D Y CHANDRACHUD, J 1 The appellant and the first respondent contested elections for the post of Ward Councilor, from Ward No 18 of the District Council of Mahendergarh. The results of election were declared on 28 January 2016. The appellant was declared to be the elected candidate. On 10 February 2016, the first respondent filed an Election Petition namely, Civil Suit 9/2016 (CS 1086/2016) under Section 176 of 2 the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act 1994 challenging the election of the appellant. Upon service of the election petition, the appellant filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC for rejection of the petition on the ground that the first respondent had failed to present it in person as required by Section 176. Notice was issued on the application. The respondent filed her reply. On 1 March 2016, the first respondent moved an application for withdrawal of the election petition. The application was allowed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division on the same day and the first respondent was permitted to withdraw the election petition with liberty to institute a fresh petition. Subsequently on 2 March 2016 the first respondent filed a second election petition, Civil Suit 361/2016(CS 1106/2016). The appellant filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 for rejection of the election petition on the ground that it was barred by limitation. An application was thereupon filed by the first respondent purportedly under Section 5 read with Section 14 of the Limitation Act submitting inter alia that if the limitation for filing the election petition had expired, the period spent between the filing of the earlier petition and its withdrawal may be excluded since the first respondent was bona fide espousing her remedies. The appellant opposed the application. 2 By a judgment dated 19 July 2016 the Trial Court allowed the application under Order 7 Rule 11 on the ground that the fresh election petition was presented after the expiry of 30 days prescribed for the institution of an election petition. The first respondent preferred an appeal which was allowed by the District Judge, 3 Narnaul on 18 January 2017. The appellant challenged the order of the District Judge before the High Court. The Civil Revision has been dismissed by the impugned order of the High Court dated 11 August 2017. The High Court has observed thus:

10 We, accordingly, allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order of the High Court dated 11 August 2017. We hold that the election petition filed by the first respondent shall stand dismissed There shall be no order as to costs.

….....................................CJI [DIPAK MISRA] …......................................J [Dr D Y CHANDRACHUD] New Delhi August 21, 2018
M/S Kohinoor Transporters vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh

Dr D Y CHANDRACHUD, J 1 An arbitral proceeding took place between the appellant and the respondent under the Arbitration Act 1940. The disputes originated in a contract of 1980 for certain civil works and eventually resulted in an arbitral award dated 20 July 1984. The award was made a Rule of the Court on 30 August 1986 by the Civil Judge, Dehradun. The award has attained finality after the High Court of Uttaranchal 2 dismissed an appeal filed by the State on 15 December 2006. The Civil Judge, it may be noted, reduced the rate of interest from 12 per cent to 6 per cent. 2 The appellant filed an application for execution before the Additional Civil Judge, Dehradun, being Execution Application 27/2010. During the course of the execution proceedings, the respondent-state deposited an amount of Rs 75,65,945 towards the decretal debt. In the course of the execution proceedings the appellant and the state filed their respective statements of calculation in regard to the amount due under the decree of the Court. On 6 April 2015, the Executing Court directed the respondent to deposit an amount of Rs 1,25,16,969.56 stating that it is ‘admitted’. Notice was issued to the respondent under Order XXI Rule 41 CPC to which it filed its objections. On 16 August 2016, the Executing Court rejected the objections on the ground that the amount of Rs 1.25 crores was admitted, as evident from the earlier order dated 6 April 2015. A Civil Revision Application was filed by the respondent against the order of the Executing court. During the course of the execution proceedings an order was passed on 3 August 2017 directing the judgment debtor to comply with the earlier order of 6 April 2015, failing which, it was observed “they shall be deemed to be pen held”. After this order of the Executing Court, a stay application was moved in the revisional proceedings before the High Court by the State. The High Court by its impugned order directed the appointment of a Chartered Accountant in the following terms: 3

8 We, accordingly, allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order of the High Court dated 18 September 2017. Having regard to the fact that the dispute between the parties arises out of a contract of 1980 and an award of 1984 which is still being executed, we request the High Court to dispose of the Civil Revision 147/2016 expeditiously, but in any event within a period of three months from the date on which a certified copy of this order is placed on its record. The Civil Appeal is, accordingly, disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

….....................................CJI [DIPAK MISRA] …......................................J [Dr D Y CHANDRACHUD] New Delhi August 21, 2018
The State Of Rajasthan vs Ganwara

2. The facts of the case in a nutshell are that upon receiving a telephonic call from P.B.M. Hospital on 5 th September, 1982 at about 1.45 p.m. PW14 — Jagdishlal, D.S.P. (Probationary) of P.S. Nava Shehar, Bikaner visited the hospital where he found Shanti alias Nylon in a completely burnt condition. In her statement to PW14, she alleged that her mother-in-law—Ganwara (respondent herein) had cruel intention against her for not satisfying her with undue demands of dowry. For this reason, with an evil intention to get rid of her, Ganwara had burnt her alive on pouring kerosene and lighting a match stick. On raising screams, the neighbouring people rushed to the spot, extinguished the flames and admitted her in the hospital. Having recorded her statement, PW14 has registered the criminal case under Section 307, IPC against the respondent and visited the place of occurrence, prepared spot panchnama (Ext. P26) and site map (Ext. P2). Pieces of burnt clothes (Ext. P5) and a lantern were recovered from the spot (Ext.P3). Meanwhile, learned Magistrate has recorded dying declaration (Ext. P11) of the injured. As the victim has succumbed to the burnt injuries on 7 th 3 September, 1982, charge under Section 302, IPC was also added to the case and the case was committed to the sessions. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

3. In its effort to prove the case against the accused, prosecution has examined as many as 16 witnesses, whereas the accused—respondent produced three witnesses in her defence. The learned trial Judge in the end formed the opinion that the accused was guilty of intentionally murdering the victim. Accordingly, she was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302, IPC for which a sentence of life imprisonment with payment of fine of Rs.50, was awarded by the trial Court.

9. The accused—respondent in her statement under Section 313, Cr.P.C. deposed that at the time of incident, 7 she was not present at the home as she has gone to Gopalji temple as per her daily routine and while returning from temple, somebody informed her about the incident. Immediately, she rushed to home, called her brother Lalchand for help and took her daughter-in-law to hospital in a tempo and admitted her in the hospital. When she was sitting aside the victim in the hospital, the family members of the deceased along with advocate Mr. Purushottam arrived there and asked her to go and sit in verandah. While she was outside the room of the deceased, the advocate and family members instigated and tutored the deceased to depose against the accused.

12. For all the aforesaid reasons, we uphold the impugned order passed by the High Court. The appeal is accordingly dismissed being devoid of merit.