L-NLProc/TathyaNyaya-and-FactLegalLlama-NyayaScrape-Datasets huggingface dataset:
The Enforcement Officer vs Mohammed Akram

3. The Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate (FERA), Bangalore filed a complaint against the Respondent and two others for an offence punishable under Section 56 (1) (ii) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘FERA 1973’). It was alleged in the complaint that M/s Pheroze Framrose, situated at Richmond Circle, Bangalore which was an authorised Money Changer, indulged in releasing substantial foreign exchange in contravention of the laws. 2 Mr. Bom R. Munshi and Mr.Clarence Fernandes who were employees of M/s Pheroze Famrose, were summoned during the course of enquiry and they admitted that foreign exchange worth Rs.50 crores was released on the basis of bogus documents by the Money Changer. Summons were issued under Section 40 of FERA on 23.10.1997 directing the Respondent and two others to appear before the Enforcement Officer, Bangalore on 24.10.1997. The Respondent and others failed to respond to the summons. As the Respondent and two others did not appear before the Enforcement Officer, CC No.86 of 1998 was filed before the Special Court (Economic Offences), Bangalore by the Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate (FERA), Bangalore. The Respondent was represented in the said proceedings by an Advocate.

8. For the aforementioned reasons, the judgment of the High Court is set aside and the appeals are allowed.

..…..............................J [S.A.BOBDE] ..…................................J [L. NAGESWARA RAO] New Delhi, August 17, 2017 8
State Of Punjab vs Senior Vocational Staff Masters ...

2) Brief facts:

(h) Aggrieved by the order dated 27.04.2005, the State Government preferred L.P.A. No. 66 of 2006 in CWP No. 10928 of 2003 and L.P.A. No. 67 of 2006 in CWP No. 7527 of 1995 before the High Court. The Division Bench of the High Court, vide 5 common judgment and order dated 23.05.2006, dismissed the appeals filed by the appellants herein.

Conclusion:

23) In view of above discussion, we are not inclined to interfere in the decision passed by the High Court. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.

AUGUST 18, 2017.

Date : 18-08-2017 This appeal was called on for pronouncement of judgment today.

For Appellant(s) Mr. Ajay Pal, AOR Mr. Karan Bharihoke, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Tarun Gupta, AOR Ms. Parul Sharma,Adv.

Mr. Varinder Kumar Sharma, AOR Mr. Aditya Kumar Choudhary,Adv.

Mr. Ajit Pathak,Adv.

Mr. Akhil Anand, AOR Mr. Ashok K. Mahajan, AOR Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.K.Agrawal pronounced the Reportable judgment of the Bench comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dipak Misra, His Lordship and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Prafulla C.Pant.

Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.

(Signed Reportable judgment is placed on the file.) 26
Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence vs Ms. Pushpa Lekhumal Tolani

2) Brief facts:

(d) Aggrieved by the decision of the High Court, the appellant filed a review petition being No. 335 of 2009. The Division Bench of the High Court, vide order dated 04.09.2009, dismissed the said review petition.

(Vijay Kumar) Under Secretary to the Govt. of India F.No. 495/29/99-Cus-VI Government of India Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue, New Delhi Central Board of Excise & Customs New Delhi, the 18th Feb, 2000 Subject: Baggage Rules—Tourist baggage—no endorsement of imports of personal effects on tourists’ passports

2. xxxxx

3. It may kindly be ensured that all genuine tourists are allowed to bring in their personal effects without endorsement on the passports and without payment of duty, subject to the terms and conditions prescribed in the Baggage rules, 1998.” (emphasis supplied by us)

However, it is made clear that the present conclusion is confined only to the disposal of this appeal.

(PRAFULLA C. PANT) NEW DELHI;

AUGUST 18, 2017.
Govind Prasad Sharma vs Doon Valley Officers Cooperative ...

2) The appellants are before us, against a judgment dated 12.12.2014, passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital, in which a demarcation report made by a government agency, in the course of conciliation proceedings between the parties, was sought to be relied upon. The Special Judge at Dehradun, specifically referring to Sections 75 and 81 of the Arbitration and Digitally signed by R.NATARAJAN Date: 2017.08.26 Conciliation Act, 1996, dismissed the Revision Petition on 11:42:59 IST Reason:

August 23, 2017
Director General Central Reserve ... vs Cpl Sunil Singh .

4. The writ petitioners filed petitions in the High Court. The High Court in the case of Cpl. B.S. Siddha, held that the original writ petitioner was guilty of making a mis-statement that he had sought prior permission. However, taking into consideration the future of the petitioner and the fact that 7 years of service had been completed by that time, the petitioner was permitted to join the civil post. The Air Force was directed to issue Discharge Certificate and relieve the petitioner within a period of 6 weeks from the date of the order and the petitioner was directed to undergo basic training in the Para Military Forces. Thereafter, the Court also directed that late joining of the petitioner will not affect his seniority which will be reckoned as per his merit along with other batch mates. In the case of Cpl. Sunil Singh following Cpl. B.S. Siddha’s judgment (supra), a similar direction was issued.

7. The appeals are allowed in the aforesaid terms. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.
Girish Sharma vs The State Of Chhattisgarh

1. On 12th February, 2015, FIR No.9/2015 was registered by the Anti-Corruption Bureau and Economic Offences Wing under the provisions of Indian Penal Code and Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The allegation was that huge amount was recovered from possession of accused which was as a result of corruption. The FIR was against 27 persons but after investigation chargesheet was filed against 16 persons. The persons against whom the Reason:

2. During investigation, statements of three of the accused mentioned in the FIR, namely, Girish Sharma, Arvind Singh Dhruv and Jeet Ram Yadav, who are appellants before us, were recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. They were not arrayed as accused but were cited as witnesses in the chargesheet. After the court took cognizance against the accused named in the chargesheet, some of the accused made applications under Section 193/319 Cr.P.C. to summon the above three persons, Girish Sharma, Arvind Singh Dhruv and Jeet Ram Yadav as accused.

8. Accordingly we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the High Court for dealing with the matter afresh in accordance with law. While considering whether the aforesaid three persons be summoned as accused or not, the High Court shall not take into account the statements made by them either under Sections 161 or 164 Cr.P.C. as proposed witnesses.

10. The parties are directed to appear before the High Court for further proceedings on Monday, the 4th September, 2017.

The papers may be placed before the Chief Justice of the High Court of Chhattisgarh for assigning the matter to an appropriate Bench. Criminal Appeal NO(s).941-942 of 2017 :
Ram Chand (D) Th Lrs. vs Udai Singh @ Daya Ram .

2) We herein set out the facts, in brief, to appreciate the issue involved in these appeals.

3) The dispute in the suit out of which this appeal arises relates to agricultural lands comprises of Khewat No. 280 Khata No. 350 Rect. No. 258 Killa No. 25 area 5 kanal, Rect. No. 295 Killa No. 5 area -01 marla, Rect. No. 214 Killa 11 area 5 kanals 12 marlas, killa no. 12 area 8 kanal, Rect. No. 255 Killa No. 6/1 area 2 kanals 10 marlas, 6/2 area 2 kanals 17 marlas, 7/1 area 4 kanals 3 marlas, 7/2 area 3 killa 17 marlas Killa 8 area 8 kanals, Rect. 258 killa 16 area 6 kanals 6 marlas, killa 24 area 8 kanals, total area 54 kanals 6 marlas situated in 2 Patti Bedha, Hodel (hereinafter referred to as the "suit land").

4) The plaintiff (Ram Chand) since dead and now represented by his legal representatives (appellants herein) filed a civil suit out of which these appeals arise against the respondents (defendants) claiming right, title and interest in the suit land. The plaintiff (appellants) also claimed possession of the suit lands from the defendants (respondents).

9) Being aggrieved by the said judgment/decree, both the parties filed first appeals before the District 4 Judge, Gurgaon being Civil Appeal Nos. 5 and 6 of 1980.

11) Against the said judgment, both plaintiff and defendants filed second appeals before the High Court being R.S.A. No. 1791 of 1980 (filed by the plaintiff) and R.S.A. No.2037 of 1980 (filed by the defendants).

10) The District Judge, by his judgment and order dated 09.04.1980, dismissed both the appeals and affirmed the judgment/decree passed by the Trial Court.

12) The High Court, by the impugned common judgment and order dated 21.11.2011, dismissed R.S.A. No.1791 of 1980 filed by the plaintiff and allowed R.S.A. No.2037 of 1980 filed by the defendants. As a result, the suit came to be dismissed.

20) As a result, the appeals succeed and are allowed. Impugned order is set aside. The case is remanded to the High Court for deciding the second appeals afresh in accordance with law keeping in view the law laid down in Santosh Hazari (supra).

August 24, 2017 9
Amina Marwa Sabreen A (Minor ) vs The State Of Kerala

The petitioners herein, three in number, belong to Muslim minority community. They are, however, not residents of Kerala and their fixed abode is Tamil Nadu. They have appeared in the National Eligibility Cum Common Entrance Test (for short, ‘NEET-UG’) examination, which is an All India examination for admission to various medical courses. Results of NEET-UG examination were published on June 23, 2017. Though the petitioners have qualified the said test, their All India ranking appears to be quite low. Notwithstanding this ranking, the Writ Petition (Civil) No. 541 of 2017 Page 1 of 13 petitioners are hopeful of getting admission in minority institution run and administered by their community, as they feel that because of the preference which can be given by the minority institutions to the persons belonging to their community, it provides a reasonable chance of getting admission to such colleges. Respondent Nos. 4 to 8 are the medical colleges run by the minority institutions. However, the petitioners feel their chances to get admission in any of the aforesaid colleges, i.e. respondent Nos. 4 to 8 which are situated in Kerala, are dented because of the undue preference given to those who are residents of Kerala. This mars the chances for getting admission in Kerala colleges as they are non-keralites being residents of Tamil Nadu.

(iii) Non-Keralite Catgegory II (NK II): Candidates who do not come under Keralite’ or Non-Keralite Category I’ will be categorised as ‘Non-Keralite Category II’. Such candidates are eligible for admission to Government seats and Management quota seats in Engineering courses in Government Controlled Self Financing Colleges. However, the Non-Keralite Category II (NK II) candidates will be considered for admission to the Government seats in Government Controlled Self Financing Engineering Colleges only when the Keralite and Non-Keralite I (NK I) candidates are not available for admission. Non-Keralite Category II (NK II) candidates are also eligible for admission to Government Seats and Management Quota seats in Private Self Financing Engineering/ Architecture Colleges, which will be notified separately. But they will not be eligible for Communal/Special/Persons with Disabilities reservation or any fee concession. ‘Non-Keralite Category II’ (NK II) candidates are not eligible for admission to Medical and Allied Courses including MBBS/BDS and for admission to Government Engineering Colleges.

Note: The following category of candidates will not be governed by clauses (i), (ii) and (iii) above:

We find substance in this preliminary objection raised by the respondent State.

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 541 of 2017 Page 12 of 13

14) For the aforesaid reasons, we dismiss the writ petition on the ground of maintainability only as we do not deem it necessary to go into the issue on merits for lack of pleadings as well as requisite prayers in this behalf.

No costs.

AUGUST 24, 2017.

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 541 of 2017 Page 13 of 13
R.K.Barwal . vs The State Of Himachal Pradesh

3) The appellants in these appeals are Released Armed Forces Personnel. They were initially taken in the Army where they served for few years and after serving for certain years, they were released from the Army. Still young and far away from the age of retirement that is prescribed for civilian post, they applied for the post of Assistant District Attorney in the State of Himachal Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State’) and were successful in getting appointment as Assistant District Attorneys with the Department of Prosecution of the State. In terms of 1972 Rules, they were accorded the benefit of their approved military service for the purposes of 3 fixation of their pay and seniority as Assistant District Attorneys. Details of appointments of these appellants are as under:

(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 29-12-2008 in CWP No. 488/2001 passed by the High Court Of Himachal Pradesh At Shimla) R.K.BARWAL. & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUS THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH & ORS. Respondent(s) ([HEARD BY : HON. A.K. SIKRI AND HON. ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.]) WITH C.A. No. 657/2016 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 14361/2009 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 19750/2011 (XIV) SLP(C)... Diary No. 20104/2017.

Date : 25-08-2017 These matters were called on for pronouncement of judgment today.

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHUSHAN For Petitioner(s) Mr. Paramjeet Singh, Patwalia, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Vikas Mahajan, Adv.

Mr. Vinod Sharma, Adv.

Mr.Vishal Mahajan, Adv.

Mr. S.S. Rai, Adv.

Mr. Varinder Kumar Sharma, AOR Ms. Pragati Neekhra, AOR Mr. Bhaskar Y. Kulkarni, AOR Mr. Rajeev Sharma, AOR Mr. Naresh K. Sharma, AOR Mr. Sahil Bhalaik, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Rajeev Kumar Bansal, Adv. 31

Mr. Brahma Prakash, Adv.

Mr. Akshay K. Ghai, Adv.

Mr. Balraj Dewan, AOR Mr. Naresh K. Sharma, AOR Mr. Himinder Lal, AOR Mr. Aditya Dhawan, Adv.

Ms. Kiran Dhawan, Adv.

Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.K. Sikri pronounced the judgment of the Bench comprising His Lordship and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan.

Leave granted in Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 8710 of 2009, 14361 of 2009 and 19750 of 2011.

The appeals and Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. ____ 2017 (arising out of SLP(C) ….D. No. 20104 of 2017) are dismissed in terms of the signed reportable judgment.

Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of accordingly.

(Signed reportable judgment is placed on the file)
Commissioner Of Income Tax-Iii vs Singhad Technical Education Society

On the basis of special audit report, taxable incomes for the Assessment Years 1999-2000 to 2006-07 had been worked out.

7) Since the documents were recovered from Mr. Navale and sought to be used against the assessee, for undertaking this exercise it is imperative that a Satisfaction Note is recorded by the AO of the person searched for use of those documents against the third person (assessee herein), which is a pre-condition for initiation of proceeding under Section 153C of the Act. This Satisfaction Note was recorded on April 18, 2007. In this Note, after discussing the documents which were recovered and seized in the search carried out on Mr. Navale, the AO recorded his satisfaction to the effect that the assessee trust cannot be considered as a genuine trust; it was receiving extra money over and above the fee fixed by the competent authority; it was not adhering to the object of providing education to the masses and managing trustees were using the assessee’s trust for their own benefits. Thus, the notice under Section 153C of the Act was issued for the Assessment Years 2000-01 to 2005-06. Notice was also issued under Section 143(2) for Assessment Year 2006-07.

upheld the order of the AO, holding that the assessee was not eligible for exemption under Section 11 of the Act and, therefore, donations received were rightly treated as income. Against the aforesaid part of the order, which was against the assessee, it preferred further appeal to the ITAT. In the appeal before the ITAT, the assessee raised additional ground questioning the validity of the notice under Section 153C of the Act on the ground that satisfaction was not properly recorded and also that the notice under Section 153C was time barred in respect of Assessment Years 2000-01 to 2003-04. The ITAT allowed the assessee to raise the additional ground and decided the same in favour of the assessee thereby quashing the notice in respect of the aforesaid Assessment Years. Challenging this order, the Revenue filed appeals before the High Court. However, the High Court has dismissed these 8 appeals, as mentioned above.

19) We, thus, find that the ITAT rightly permitted this additional ground to be raised and correctly dealt with the same ground on merits as well. Order of the High Court affirming this view of the Tribunal is, therefore, without any blemish. Before us, it was argued by the respondent that notice in respect of the Assessment Years 2000-01 and 2001-02 was time barred. However, in view of our aforementioned findings, it is not necessary to enter into this controversy.

23) The appeals are dismissed with the aforesaid observations.

AUGUST 29, 2017.
Ahsan vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh

3) Brief facts:

4) On the basis of the written report submitted by Illiyas on 08.10.2004 at 20.45 hrs., F.I.R. case Crime No. 313 of 2004 was registered under Sections 452, 307 and 504 IPC at Police Station Shamli, District Muzaffar Nagar. On the same day, the investigation was conducted by sub-Inspector 4 Vijendra Singh. The site plan was prepared and the statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”). The charge-sheet was filed against Manshad and Ahsan for the offences punishable under Sections 452, 307, 316 and 504 IPC. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial on 18.05.2005.

24) It is for the reasons that firstly, the facts of the case squarely fall in the second part of Section 307 IPC; secondly, gunshot injury caused by the appellant to the victim-Shahjad was grievous in nature, thirdly, the bullet injury was caused in the head which was the most delicate and vital part of 12 the body; fourthly, the facts of the case satisfied the ingredients of the first part of Section 307 IPC, namely, all the three accused which included the appellant had gone to the house of victim-Shahjad with a common intention to kill the members of family and in order to accomplish the intention, each accused targeted one member of the family present in the room which resulted in death of a stillborn child of Rukhsana, who was hit by gunshot in her abdomen and other two members suffered serious gunshot injuries though both survived.

7) Aggrieved by the judgment of the Trial Court, the accused filed an appeal being Criminal Appeal No.615 of 2008 before the High Court.

8) By judgment dated 21.04.2015, the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the accused and upheld the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court.

22) Here, we are concerned with class of cases falling under part one and two.

23) In our view, the two Courts below did not commit any error in exercising their judicial discretion in the light of facts found proved while awarding life imprisonment to the appellant.

28) In the light of foregoing discussion, we find no merit in the appeal which thus fails and is accordingly dismissed.
Prem Prakash vs Santosh Kumar Jain

3) Brief facts:

13) Further, the other visiting card is having the name of “M/s R.R. Jewellers”. The alleged sub-tenant has denied the claim in the affidavit filed before the courts below that earlier he was doing the business in the name and style of M/s R.R. Jewellers. The respondent-owner has brought on record the list of subscribers issued by the Delhi Sanchaar Sewa (Pvt.) Ltd. wherein for R.R. Jewellers, the address mentioned is that of the suit property and the phone number is exactly the same as mentioned on the business card of M/s Aashima Jewellery” i.e., ‘3901361’. Respondent No. 2 has admitted the fact of doing business in the name of M/s Aashima Jewellery” which is also evident from the business card used by him having the address of the suit property and the telephone number ‘3901361’ whereas he denied to have worked under the name and style of M/s R.R. Jewellers but the very fact is falsified by the evidence in the form of subscribers list of Delhi Sanchaar 11 Sewa wherein the same telephone number, i.e., ‘3901361’ has been given. Meaning thereby, Respondent No. 2 was doing business in the suit premises independently of the appellant herein.

19) In the present facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the original owner-respondent No. 1 herein has proved beyond doubt that the property is in exclusive possession of the sub-tenant and the appellant herein has not been able to deny the claim of sub-tenancy in favour of Respondent No. 2. The absence of evidence and failure to discharge the onus lay heavy on appellant and there could be no presumption other than that the suit premises 1 had been sublet and parted with possession by the appellant herein to the Respondent No. 2.

Conclusion:-

(ASHOK BHUSHAN) NEW DELHI;

AUGUST 30, 2017.
Amit Vashistha vs Suresh .

2. In an adjudication proceeding under Section 7A of the Act, with regard to provident fund claims of the respondent, the 1 Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner filed a complaint on 22.06.2001 before the Judicial Magistrate First Class under Section 228 IPC, that the respondent had obstructed and interfered with the proceedings by abusing the Presiding Officer, and rushed to assault him, but the complainant was saved by the office staff. The Magistrate convicted the respondent till rising of the Court and imposed fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulation. In appeal, preferred by the respondent, the Sessions Judge while maintaining the conviction released him under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 on an undertaking of good behavior for a period of one year. Aggrieved, the respondent moved the High Court in a revision application leading to the impugned order, thus the present appeal.

7. The argument that the complaint was required to be filed under Section 340 Cr.P.C. before the appellate tribunal and not before the magistrate having jurisdiction is considered frivolous and is rejected.

8. The order of the High Court is, therefore, held to be unsustainable and is set aside.

9. The appeal is allowed.
Apparaju Malhar Rao vs Bandi Venkateshwarlu

2) We herein set out the facts, in brief, to appreciate the issue involved in this appeal.

7) Aggrieved by the said judgment/decree, the defendants filed first appeal being Appeal Suit No.34 of 1999 before the Additional District Judge (FTC), Karimnagar (A.P.). By judgment/decree dated 24.03.2004, the Additional District Judge allowed 3 the first appeal, set aside the judgment/decree of the Trial Court and dismissed the suit.

18) As a result, the appeal succeeds and is allowed.

Impugned order is set aside. The case is remanded to the High Court for deciding the second appeal afresh in accordance with law keeping in view the law laid down in the case of Santosh Hazari (supra).

September 01, 2017 8