L-NLProc/TathyaNyaya-and-FactLegalLlama-NyayaScrape-Datasets huggingface dataset:
Swami Prasad & Anr vs Lakhan Singh(D) & Ors. Tr.Lrs

2. The appellants in Second Appeal No.25 of 1993 on the file of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur are the appellants before us. The said Second Appeal, filed in 1993, after admission, was pending final hearing and was not being listed for hearing before the Court periodically. It is stated that the first respondent died on 28.5.1998. The appellants claim that they were unaware of his death. Nearly eight years later, on 1.8.2006, the counsel for the first respondent informed the Court about the death of his client. Unfortunately on that day, the counsel for the appellants was not present, and consequently the appellants were unaware of the death of the first respondent even after 2 1.8.2006. On 9.8.2007, the appeal was dismissed as having abated as the legal representatives of the deceased first respondent were not brought on record within the time prescribed. When the appellants came to know about it, they filed an application for setting aside the abatement and consequential restoration and to bring the legal representatives of the deceased first respondent on record. Those applications were dismissed by the impugned order dated 19.9.2008.

5. We, accordingly, allow this appeal, set aside the impugned order dated 19.9.2008, restore the second appeal to the file of the High Court, set aside the abatement by condoning the delay and permit the appellants to bring the legal representatives of the deceased first respondent on record. We request the High Court to dispose of the second appeal expeditiously.
Sec.& Curator Victoria Memorial Hall vs Howrah Ganatantrik Nagrik Samity & Ors

3. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are as under:

21. The High Court vide order dated 28.9.2007 directed to shift the administrative office outside the monument on wrong premises. The material on record suggests that all museums have this kind of accommodation within its campus. The entire administrative office including Curators', Director's office of Salarjung Museum are located within the Main Museum building. Similar is the position with the Indian Museum at Kolkata, National Museum, National Gallery of Modern Art at New Delhi, Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj Vastu Sangrahalaya Museum (formerly the Prince of Wales Museum) at Mumbai, Nehru Memorial Museum & Library and National Museum in New Delhi. Same is the position within internationally renowned museums, namely, British Museum, 15 Victoria & Albert Museum, U.K., Louvre, Paris and Museums in Vienna.

26. Thus, it is evident that the High Court did not give any specific/good or relevant reason for not accepting the recommendation made by Expert Committee at initial stage or while rejecting the application for modification vide impugned order.

33. Thus, it is evident that the recording of reasons is principle of natural justice and every judicial order must be supported by reasons recorded in writing. It ensures transparency and fairness in decision making. The person 23 who is adversely affected may know, as why his application has been rejected.

34. Indisputably, the High Court did not assign valid and good reasons for rejecting the recommendation made by the Expert Committee for allowing the construction in question in its judgment and order dated 28.09.2007 nor the reasons have been recorded in the impugned judgment dated 21.08.2009 rejecting the application for modification of the earlier order. Thus, in view of the above, the orders, so far as this particular issue is concerned, remain unsustainable.

35. Thus, in view of the above, special facts and circumstances of the case warrant review of the impugned order. The appeal stands allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 21.8.2009 is set aside. Application filed by the appellant for modification of the order dated 28.9.2007 stands allowed.

However, it is clarified that in case the proposed construction is raised it would be in consonance with the existing ambience and compatible with the architecture of 24 the monument. The appellant shall ensure that landscape of the monument would also not be disturbed by any means.

The parties are left to bear their own costs.
Dharamveer & Ors vs State Of U.P

3. Prosecution commenced on the basis of report given by PW.1 Jaipal Singh on 10/10/1997 to the In- charge out-post at Khurja junction within Khurja Police Station. According to the prosecution on 10th October, 1997 at 4 P.M. the informant PW.1, Jaipal Singh along with his nephew Sheodan (deceased) brother Jagdish(deceased) besides other persons including Shiv Charan (PW2) had gone from their village Ramgarhi to village Auranga to participate in a Panchayat convened to settle the dispute between Prakash and his son. According to 3 the informant on way back, the two deceased and Ravi Kiran were 30 to 35 steps ahead of them and after they had crossed the grove of Ravi Kiran, appellants herein armed with country-made pistols came out of millet field of Shreepal and started firing on the two deceased and Ravi Kiran. According to the prosecution Jagdish ran towards Ramgarhi and Sheodan towards Auranga and these appellants chased Jagdish and killed him whereas Sanjay, Sheesh Pal and Neetu (since acquitted) followed Sheodan and caused firearm injury causing his death in the field of Balwant.

4. On the basis of the aforesaid information Crime No.21/118/97 under Section 147, 148, 149, 307 and 302 Indian Penal Code was registered at 8.20 P.M. at Khurja Police Station. After usual investigation Police submitted charge-sheet against the appellants and ultimately they were committed to Court of Sessions where they were charged for commission of offence under Section 148, 302/149 and 307/149 of the Indian Penal Code. Appellants denied to have committed the offence and claimed to 4 be tried. In order to bring home the charge, prosecution, altogether examined seven witnesses, out of which PW.1 Jaipal Singh and PW.2 Shivcharan are the eye-witnesses to the occurrence. PW.3, Dr.P.P. Singh is a Medical Officer who had examined Ravi Kiran and found lacerated wound on his person caused by blunt object. PW.4, Dr.S.K. Sharma is another Medical Officer, who had conducted post mortem examination on the dead bodies of Jagdish and Sheodan and found ante-mortem gun shot injuries on their person. In his opinion both the deceased died of shock and haemorrhage as a result of gun shot injuries. PW.5, Ashok Kumar is a Constable who took the dead bodies to mortuary for post mortem examination. PW.6, Madan Mohan is Sub-Inspector of Police, who after investigation submitted the charge-sheet against the appellants. PW.7, Ram Naresh Yadav is Incharge Police outpost, who proved the check-reports.

17. Mr. Gupta submits that the two eye-witnesses namely PW.1 Jaipal Singh and PW.2 Shiv Charan were highly inimical to the accused persons and according to the prosecution itself both had come at a hand-shaking distance, they would not have been left unharmed and hence their claim to be the 16 eye-witnesses to the incident is highly doubtful.

19. In the result, we do not find any merit in the appeal and it is dismissed accordingly.

20. The Appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds stand cancelled and they are directed to surrender and to serve out remainder of the sentence.
Sangappa & Ors vs State Of Karnataka

3. On 9th September, 1998 at about 6.00 p.m. one Shivalingayya lodged a first information report before the Sub-Inspector of Yedrami Police Station inter alia alleging that his son Sharanaiah was murdered by four persons namely Sangappa(A-1), Sharanappa(A-2), Malappa(A-3) and Jagadavappa (A-4). It is alleged in the report that on the fateful day Shivalingayya and his wife - Boramma (PW-1) joined their son Sharanaiah (deceased) in the fields to remove the unwanted weeds from their land. During that time all the accused persons were passing by the side of the complainant's land along with their bullocks and all of a sudden one bullock strayed into their fields and started grazing the crops. The deceased on finding that the bullock so entered into the fields asked the 3 appellants to ensure that no damages caused to the crops. Enraged by the demand so made by the deceased all the accused started abusing the deceased. The matter did not end there. It is further alleged that Sharanappa (A-2) caught hold of the deceased, floored him to the ground and gagged his mouth and Sangappa (A-1) attacked the deceased with a knife and the other two accused Mallapa and Jagadevappa (A-3 & A-4) respectively hit the deceased on his back and legs with stones. Shivalingayya and his wife (PW-1) made an attempt to rescue their son but A-2 and A-3 forcefully pushed them aside. In the report, it is alleged that all the accused trespassed into the fields with the common intention of committing murder of the deceased as the deceased interfered in a matter concerning some illicit relationship between the sister of the accused and one Siddanna.

11. In such view of the matter, we set aside the impugned judgment and order and remit the matter to the High Court for fresh consideration and disposal in accordance with law. It is however, made clear that we have not expressed any opinion whatsoever on the merits of the case since it is for the High Court to re-appreciate the evidence and arrive at its own conclusions.

12. The appeal is allowed. We have already released the appellants on bail. They shall continue to be on bail. We request the High Court to dispose of the appeal as expeditiously as possible.
Jiten Besra vs State Of West Bengal

1. By this appeal, accused Jiten Besra challenges the judgment of the High Court confirming the judgment of the Trial Court whereby he was convicted for the offence under Section 302, IPC and was consequentially sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life. The accused Jiten Besra is said to have committed murder of one Nandlal Tudu and Mital Bala. The deceased Nandlal Tudu was none else but the father-in-law of the accused, being father of Malati Besra, his wife. It is contended by the prosecution that on the fateful day, Malati along with her mother had gone to attend `Boul Song' and she was also accompanied by her sister Parbati. When they came back at dawn on 21.05.1997, they found that both her parents i.e. Nandlal and Mital Bala were dead.

2. A written complaint was lodged by Malati in Boro Police Station wherein it was alleged that one unknown miscreant might have killed her parents out of previous enmity. The investigation ensued on the basis of this First Information Report and the investigating agency came to the conclusion that it was appellant Jiten Besra who was the perpetrator of the crime. In support of it, the charge-sheet was filed and after the committal of the case to the Sessions Judge, during the trial, the prosecution examined, in all, 15 witnesses which included Malati (PW-1), PWs-2 to 13, who were persons from locality, Partha Sarathi Dhar (PW-14), the doctor who conducted the postmortem of the bodies of the deceased persons and Ram Narayan Datta (PW-15) who was the Investigating Officer. The defence of the appellant was that he was being falsely implicated and there was no evidence against him whatsoever.

3. The defence did not prevail and the accused came to be convicted by the Trial Court relaying on the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. The High Court dismissed the appeal and that is how the appellant is before us.

9. Accordingly, we allow the appeal giving the benefit of doubt to the accused and acquit him of all the charges. He be set at liberty forthwith unless required in any other offence.

March 10, 2010.
Ptc India Ltd vs Central Electricity Reg. Comm. ...

(4) The Authority shall prepare a National Electricity Plan in accordance with the National Electricity Policy and notify such plan once in five years:

59. Summary of Our Findings:

In the present 2003 Act, the power of judicial review of the validity of the Regulations made under Section 178 is not conferred on the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity.

(vi) Applying the principle of "generality versus enumeration", it would be open to the Central Commission to make a regulation on any residuary item under Section 178(1) read with Section 178(2)(ze). Accordingly, we hold that the CERC was empowered to cap the trading margin under the authority of delegated legislation under Section 178 vide the impugned notification dated 23.1.2006.

60. For the aforesaid reasons, we answer the question raised in the reference as follows:

61. In view of our findings, we dismiss these appeals as having no merit with no order as to costs.

March 15, 2010
Oil & Natural Gas Corp. Ltd. Tr. M.D vs Commr.Of Income Tax, Dehradun

2.As, in our opinion, both the afore-noted issues are no more res integra, we deem it unnecessary to state the facts in detail and with a view to appreciate the controversy, a brief reference to the foundational facts in respect of assessment year 1991-92 would suffice. These are:

13.We are of the opinion that the decision of this Court in Woodward's case (supra) settles the second issue as well. We respectfully concur with the same and hold that all the assessment years in question being prior to the amendment in Section 43A of the Act with effect from 1st April, 2003 the Assessee would be entitled to adjust the actual cost of the imported capital assets, acquired in foreign currency, on account of fluctuation in the rate of exchange at each of the relevant balance-sheet dates pending actual payment of the varied liability.

14.Resultantly, all the appeals are allowed; the impugned orders are set aside and both the questions formulated in para 1 (supra) are answered in favour of the Assessee, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

MARCH 15, 2010.
Satya Prakash & Ors vs State Of Bihar & Ors

3. The appellants who had worked for more than 10 years on daily rated basis in the Bihar Intermediate Education Council has approached the Patna High Court for regularization of their services and a learned Single Judge of the Patna High Court directed the Council to consider their request for regularization treating them as a separate class after relaxing their age. Since no positive direction was given to the Council for regularization of their services, an appeal was preferred before the Division Bench of the Patna High Court. The Division Bench held that merely because they had worked as daily waged employees with the Council would not confer any right for regularization as no public appointment was permissible de hors the recruitment rules. Letters Patent Appeal was, therefore, dismissed in limine. Aggrieved by the same this appeal has been preferred with a petition for special leave to appeal. 3

15. The appeal, therefore, lacks merits and the same is disposed of as above.

March 16, 2010.
Zakir Hussain Prim.Tech.Edun.Col.& ... vs State Of Bihar & Ors

3. The Board, however, passed a resolution dated 27.2.2004 deciding to cancel the results of the students of Primary Teachers Training Colleges which had been withheld and not declared for several years. The legality of that Resolution was the subject matter of a writ petition - CWJC No.3794/2004 filed by the students of first appellant college. The writ petitioners sought a direction to the respondents to produce the Resolution No.3 dated 27.2.2004 of the Bihar School Examination Board and to quash the same. The writ petitioners also sought a direction to publish the result of the examination and other consequential reliefs. The writ petitioners stated that they were admitted to the primary teachers training course for various sessions between 1979-81 and 1981-83 conducted by the first appellant - Dr. Zakir Hussain Primary Teachers Training College, Sultanganj; that at that time the College was not recognized, though application for recognition was pending; and that since no order was passed by the State Government on the application for recognition, a writ petition bearing no.CWJC 2428/1985 was filed which was disposed of by the learned Single Judge of the Patna High Court on 28.1.1993 directing the State Government to dispose of the application for recognition.

5. Therefore, the appellant college filed a writ petition (CWJC No.11428 of 2006) seeking a direction to the respondents to conduct an examination for its students of the academic sessions 1984-86, 1985-87, 1986-88, 1987- 89, 1988-90, 1989-91, 1990-92, 1991-93, 1992-94, 1993-95, and 1994-96 by issuing examination forms, and admissions cards and publish their results. The said writ petition was also dismissed by a learned Single Judge on 6.12.2006, on the ground of delay.

10. In these circumstances, we are inclined to set aside the judgment of the High Court and request the Division Bench of the Patna High Court to hear the matter on merits after giving the parties an opportunity to file counter affidavits and reply affidavits, if any. In view of the fact that a large number of students are affected and as the matter relates to courses undergone more than two decades ago, we request the High Court to dispose of the matter expeditiously. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. The appeals are accordingly disposed of.

___________________J.

[R. V. Raveendran] ____________________J.

[K.S. Radhakrishnan] New Delhi;

March 16, 2010.
Punjab State Electy. Board vs M/S.Vishwa Calbier Builders Pvt.Ltd

3. The respondent, who owns a shopping complex at Mata Rani Chowk, AC Market, Ludhiana submitted application dated 23.5.1995 to the competent authority of the appellant for sanction of NRS connection with a load of 2548 KW and deposited ACD amounting to Rs.5,25,600/-. The Engineer-in-Chief/Commercial Sales Director, Punjab State Electricity Board sanctioned registration of the application of the respondent subject to the condition that connection would be released only after shifting of 8 MVA load from 66 KV sub station, G.T. Road, Ludhiana to the proposed 66 KV sub station, Feroze Gandhi Market and Transport Nagar, Ludhiana. However, due to non-availability of the transformer, steps for shifting 8 MVA load from 66 KV sub station, G.T. Road, Ludhiana, could not be taken. After some time, the respondent applied for release of connection with 1500 KW from the existing system. The request of the respondent was accepted by the Chief Engineer concerned and accordingly a connection was released in favour of the respondent with effect from 25.3.1996. On 11.5.1999, new transformer was installed at 66 KV sub station, G.T. Road, 3 Ludhiana. Thereafter, Memo dated 11.8.1999 was issued to the respondent to give consent for release of the balance load. The latter submitted consent letter dated 1.9.1999 with a stipulation that six months' period may be allowed for building up the balance load. On being asked by the Senior Executive Engineer, the respondent submitted an affidavit dated 16.10.2000 for release of the balance load.

5. The electricity connection installed in the premises of the respondent was checked on 27.8.2004 by a team of officers of the Board which found that as against the sanctioned load of 1500 KW, the respondent was using total load of 1981.637 KW. Upon receipt of the report of the checking team, 4 demand notice dated 25.1.2005 was issued to the respondent requiring it to deposit Rs.15,41,492/- which included Rs. 3,37,400/- as ACD, Rs.4,81,637/- as service connection charges and Rs.7,22,455/- as load surcharge.

6. The respondent challenged the aforesaid notice by filing a petition before the DSA, which was dismissed vide order dated 20.2.2006. The operative portion of that order reads as under:

11. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order of the High Court as also order dated 5.9.2007 passed by the Ombudsman are set aside and the one passed by the DSA is restored. The respondent is allowed three 9 months time to deposit the amount payable in terms of demand dated 25.1.2005. The appellant and, if necessary, its successor shall be entitled to charge interest at the prevailing banking rate on the amount which was not paid by the respondent or which may have been refunded by the appellant in terms of the directions given by the Ombudsman and/or order passed by the High Court.
K.Neelaveni vs State Rep.By Insp.Of Police & Ors

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the appellant-wife K. Neelaveni on 07/11/2002 gave a written report to the Inspector of Selaiyur Police Station, inter alia, alleging 2 that her marriage was performed with accused respondent No. 2 - S.K. Siva Kumar on 3rd September, 1997 in which gold ornaments and various other household articles were given by her parents. She had further alleged that her husband used to abuse her and her family members under influence of alcohol and demanded Rs. 50,000/- from her parents. According to the First Information Report, when she was pregnant, on scan it was found that she was carrying a female foetus, her husband and his family members started harassing her and insisted for aborting the child. On her refusal to give consent for abortion according to the informant on 18.1.1998, her husband, mother-in-law, brother-in-law and sister-in-law assaulted her and had driven her out from the matrimonial home and the husband left her on way to her parents house. She gave birth to a girl child on 25.6.1998.

3. Informant in the written report had further alleged that her husband had married another lady namely, Bharathi without her consent with the help and in the presence of other accused persons. She had further alleged that a female child was born to them in the wedlock.

4. On the basis of the aforesaid written report, a case under Sections 406, 494 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code 3 was registered against the accused persons. Police after usual investigation submitted charge sheet under Sections

13. For all these reasons we are unable to sustain the order impugned in the present appeal.

14. We hasten to add that all the observations made in this judgment are for the purpose of disposal of this appeal and shall have no bearing during the course of trial.

15. In the result, we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment.
Poonam vs Sumit Tanwar

2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the present case are that the petitioner and the respondent got married on 30.11.2008 according to Hindu rites in Delhi. They separated just after two days of their marriage i.e. on 02.12.2008. A petition for dissolution of marriage by consent being HMA No. 197/09 dated 09.09.2009 was filed under Section 13-B(1) of The Act, 1955. The Family Court of Delhi, vide order dated 25.11.2009 accepted the said HMA No. 197/2009 (titled as Poonam Vs. Sumit Tanwar) observing as under :-

In the said case, this Court did not merely dismiss the petition for not rendering any assistance by the appearing counsel in absence of the Advocate-on-Record, rather issued notice to the Supreme Court Bar Association and the Advocates-on-Record's Association asking for suggestions for improving the system and to compel such mere name-lending Advocates-on-Record to serve the purpose for which they have been enrolled. The matter is to come for further consideration after those Associations submit their suggestions for observance and strict adherence to the Rules, as is evident from the proceedings in that case dated 30.11.2009, 08.03.2010, 15.03.2010 and 18.03.2010.

For the reasons aforesaid, this petition is dismissed.

..............................J. (AFTAB ALAM) .............................J. (Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN) New Delhi, March 22, 2010 14 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 86 OF 2010 Smt. Poonam ..... Petitioner Versus Sumit Tanwar ..... Respondent Dear Brother, A draft order in the above mentioned matter is being sent herewith for your kind perusal and favourable consideration.

With regards, Yours sincerely, (Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN) HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AFTAB ALAM 15