L-NLProc/TathyaNyaya-and-FactLegalLlama-NyayaScrape-Datasets huggingface dataset:
R.Mohan vs A.K. Vijaya Kumar

3. The accused was tried by the Vth Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, “the said Act”) and, by order dated 16/4/2004 he was sentenced to undergo 3 months simple imprisonment and to pay compensation of Rs.5 lakhs to the complainant under Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code (for short, “the Code”), in default, to undergo two months simple imprisonment. In appeal, the IIIrd Additional Fast Track District & Sessions Judge, Chennai confirmed the conviction and sentence. In revision, the High Court confirmed the order of conviction and sentence of three months simple imprisonment and to pay compensation of Rs.5 lakhs, however, the High Court was of opinion that no separate sentence could be awarded in default of payment of compensation when substantive sentence of imprisonment is independently awarded. The High Court, therefore, set aside the sentence in default of payment of compensation. Being aggrieved by the said order of conviction and sentence, the accused has approached this court by way of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.2299 of 2012. The complainant has filed Special Leave Petition No.3327 of 2012 being aggrieved by the order of the High Court to the extent it sets aside the order of sentence in default of payment of compensation.

4. The brief facts are as under:

5. On these facts, the accused was sent up for trial before the Vth Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, who convicted him as aforesaid. We have already noted how the matter travelled upto this Court.

20. In the result, we dismiss the appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 2299 of 2012 filed by the accused and allow the appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 3327 of 2012 filed by the complainant. We set aside the impugned order of the High Court to the extent it quashes the sentence in default of payment of compensation. We restore the order passed by learned Magistrate dated 16/4/2004 awarding two months simple imprisonment in default of payment of compensation of Rs.5 lakhs under Section 357(3) of the Code. We grant two months’ time to the accused to pay the said amount of compensation to the complainant from the date of receipt of this order.
V.I.Uthuppan vs Thankachan & Anr

3. During the pendency of these appeals, the parties have entered into a settlement. Accordingly, they have filed an application before this Court on 06.06.2012. In the said application, the terms and conditions settled between the parties are noted.

Ordered accordingly.

JULY 09, 2012 ITEM NO.52 COURT NO.8 SECTION IIB S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No(s).2096-2097/2011 (From the judgement and order dated 27/10/2010 in CRLRP No.1434/2009,CRLRP No.2323/2009 of The HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM) V.I.UTHUPPAN Petitioner(s) VERSUS THANKACHAN & ANR Respondent(s) (With appln(s) for exemption from filing O.T.,stay,permission to file additional documents and office report ) Date: 09/07/2012 These Petitions were called on for hearing today.

CORAM :
Ashok Kumar Ratilal Patel vs Uoi And Anr

3. The appellant in his application dated 24th September, 2009 shown details of his qualifications in the prescribed proforma, including the scale of pay as he was receiving, as shown below:

15. For the reasons aforesaid, the impugned order of withdrawal of appointment dated 11th March, 2010 and the order of the Division Bench of Gujarat High Court cannot be sustained and they are accordingly set aside. As the post of Director is vacant, in view of the interim order of this Court dated 9th May, 2011, we direct the 2nd respondent to accept the joining of the appellant for a period of one year on deputation which is to be counted from the date of his joining and other terms and conditions of deputation will remain same. The North Gujarat University is directed to relieve the appellant with further direction to 2nd respondent to accept the joining of the appellant within one week from the date of reporting by the appellant. The appeal is allowed with the aforesaid observations and directions. There shall be no order as to costs.
Vinod Kumar Koul vs State Of J & K & Ors

2. In response to an advertisement issued by the Jammu and Kashmir Services Selection Board, Jammu (for short, ‘the Board’) which was published in the newspaper dated 29.3.1996, the appellant applied for the post of Laboratory Assistant, which is a District cadre post. He appeared before the Selection Committee consisting of respondent Nos. 4 to 6 but was not interviewed on the ground that he was not a permanent resident of District Udhampur.

5. The Board contested the writ petition primarily on the ground that the appellant is not a permanent resident of District Udhampur and that in view of Circular dated 20.5.1993, only an unambiguous permanent residence certificate issued by the competent revenue authorities of the district could be accepted. Similar written statements were filed by the other respondents.

6. After considering the arguments of the counsel for the parties, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the premise that the selection was to be made only from the candidates belonging to District Udhampur and being a permanent resident of District Anantnag, the appellant was not entitled to be considered for appointment in District Udhampur. The Division Bench of the High Court agreed with the learned Single Judge and dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant.

13. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and the order of the learned Single Judge are set aside. It is declared that the appellant was eligible to be considered for the post of Laboratory Assistant for District Udhampur. The Board is directed to declare the result of the appellant’s interview within a period of 4 weeks from today. If it is found that the appellant’s name would have figured among the selected candidates, then the Board shall forward its recommendation to the appointing authority. This shall be done within 2 weeks of the declaration of result. Within next 4 weeks, the competent authority shall issue order appointing the appellant on the post of Laboratory Assistant. The appellant shall be entitled to have his seniority fixed in accordance with the Rules. The parties are left to bear their own costs.

…..……….....……..….………………….…J. [G.S. SINGHVI] …………..………..….………………….…J. [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA] New Delhi, July 16, 2012.
Girimallappa vs Spl.Laq Officer & Anr

B. One LAC Case No. 500 of 1993 filed by another person was decided by the Reference Court under Section 18 of the Act on 28.9.1994. While placing reliance on the same, the petitioner filed application under Section 28-A of the Act. The said application was allowed fixing the market value of the dry land at the rate of Rs.10000/- per Acre. Petitioner preferred a further reference against that order claiming Rs.45000/- per Acre for dry land and Rs.75000/- per Acre for irrigated lands. The said reference was decided vide order dated 27.9.2003 assessing the market value at the rate of Rs. 15000/- per Acre for dry land and Rs.21500/- per Acre for irrigated land. C. Aggrieved from the said reference award, petitioner preferred LAC Appeal No. 64 of 2008 before the District Judge, Gulbarga, seeking enhancement of compensation assessing the market value of the land at the rate of Rs.24000/- per Acre which stood allowed vide judgment and decree dated 27.10.2009.

11. This special leave petition is filed with a delay of 154 days, with an explanation that petitioner suffered from the ailment and could not approach the court within limitation.

18. Thus, in view of the above, we do not see any justification to accept the submission on behalf of the petitioner that the High Court preferred technicalities over substantial justice.

Petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.

....…………….....................J. ( Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN ) .…………............................J. ( SWATANTER KUMAR ) New Delhi, July 16, 2012
Garg Woollen Pvt.Ltd vs State Of U.P. & Ors

2. The appellant purchased the land comprised in Khasra No.262 of village Central Hope Town, Tehsil and District Dehradun by registered sale deed dated 19.10.1984 for setting up an industrial unit. Its name was mutated in the revenue records on 25.01.1985.

7. At this stage, we may mention that this and the connected appeal being C.A. No. 5713 of 2002 - Everest Gas Cylinders Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. and others were disposed of on 15.04.2009 by taking cognizance of the statement made by learned counsel for UPSIDC that the Corporation is willing to give the acquired land to the appellants on lease at the specified rates and statement of the appellants' counsel that the offer made by the Corporation was acceptable to their clients. However, in view of some controversy relating to the price mentioned in the affidavit filed on behalf of UPSIDC, the order disposing of the appeals was recalled on 15.07.2011. On the same day, interlocutory application filed by M/s. Tirupati LPG Industries Limited for its impleadment as party-respondent was allowed.

6. The Division Bench of the High Court did not consider the appellant's challenge to the invoking of urgency clause and dismissed the writ petition only on the ground that the appellant had made an incorrect statement about the construction of the factory prior to the issue of notification under Section 4(1) and had made an attempt to mislead the Court.

11. In the result, the appeal is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the acquisition of the appellant's land is quashed. It is, however, made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the rights of the impleaded respondent and if any other litigation is pending, then the same shall be adjudicated by the competent Court without being influenced by the observations contained in this order.

JULY 19, 2012.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.5713 OF 2002 EVEREST CYLINDERS PVT.LTD. .......APPELLANT VERSUS STATE OF U.P. & ORS ......RESPONDENTS O R D E R This appeal is directed against order dated 09.09.1997 passed by the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant questioning the acquisition of its land was dismissed.

Learned counsel for the parties agree that the main issue raised in this appeal is identical to the one raised in Civil Appeal No.5712 of 2002.

By a separate judgment passed today, we have allowed Civil Appeal No.5712 of 2002 and quashed the acquisition proceedings.

For the detailed reasons recorded in the aforesaid judgment, which shall be read as part of this order, the appeal is allowed, the order passed by the High Court is set aside and the acquisition of the appellant's land is quashed.

JULY 19, 2012.
Bhau Ram vs Janak Singh & Ors

3) Brief facts:

(b) Against the said order, Kamla Devi (defendant No.1) preferred an appeal before the District Judge, Mahesu, who, by his order dated 14.12.1966, dismissed the same.

(c) During the pendency of the proceedings before the Compensation Officer, one Raghunath Singh Thakur of Marina Hotel, Shimla filed a Civil Suit No. 80/1 of 1962 in the Court of Sub-Judge, Mahesu against Madna Wati and Kamla Devi alleging that the suit land along with other land property was mortgaged with him by Madna Wati and, therefore, she had no rights to sell or transfer the suit land. The said suit was decreed in favour of Raghunath Singh. Aggrieved by the said order, they filed an appeal before the Judicial Commissioner, Himachal Pradesh at Shimla and Reshmoo Devi also preferred an appeal before the Judicial Commissioner, Shimla. Both the appeals were transferred to the High Court of Himachal Pradesh. The High Court allowed the appeal preferred by Reshmoo Devi and set aside the order of the sub-Judge Mahesu to the extent it affected her rights and further directed her to seek remedy against Kamla Devi by a separate suit.

(e) Aggrieved by that judgment, Kamla Devi filed an appeal before the sub- Judge, Ist Class, Shimla. During the pendency of the appeal, Reshmoo Devi died on 25.09.1985. An application under Order XXII Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short “CPC”) was filed by the sister of Reshmoo Devi for bringing her on record as legal representative (L.R.). However, another application was filed by Hira Singh and Attar Singh that they may be brought on record as L.Rs of Reshmoo Devi on the basis of a Will.

(j) Against the said order, Attar Singh filed F.A. No. 90-S/13 of 2005 before the District Judge (Forest), Shimla. After the death of Attar Singh, Kamla Devi was brought on record as his legal representative. Vide order dated 31.07.2009, the District Judge (Forest) allowed the appeal. Challenging the said order, the appellant herein and his sister, Kular Mani, filed R.S.A. No. 501 of 2009 before the High Court. By the impugned order dated 20.09.2010, the High Court dismissed the appeal. Against the said order, the appellant herein filed an appeal by way of special leave petition before this Court.

10) In the light of the above discussion and in view of the settled legal position, as mentioned above, we are of the view that the High Court is fully justified in confirming the decision of the appellate Court remitting the matter to the trial Court for consideration of all the issues. In view of the fact that the suit is pending from 2002, we direct the trial Court to decide the suit in its entirety considering all the issues, after affording adequate opportunity to both the parties, and dispose of the same within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.

11) Consequently, the civil appeal is dismissed with the above direction. No order as to costs.

JULY 20, 2012.
Kamalbai Sinkar vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors

5. Based on an earlier order passed by the Nagpur Bench of the High Court in Writ Petition No.424 of 2007, the Collector of Amravati in his letter dated 29.10.2009 informed the appellant that her husband’s claim for grant of Freedom Fighters’ Pension was submitted to the Government along with recommendation of the Gaurav Samiti dated 20.12.1996. The appellant was advised to contact the Government. However, in the order of the State Government dated 22.01.2008 communicated to the Collector of Amravati, it was stated that there was no concrete evidence in proof of the participation of the freedom fight movement by the husband of the appellant and his claim for grant of Freedom Fighters’ Pension was, therefore, rejected. The Collector was directed to communicate the same to the appellant.

9. In our considered view, the High Court ought to have examined the grievance of the appellant before confirming the order of rejection of the respondent State. In the circumstances, the appeal deserves to be allowed. The impugned orders are set aside. The respondent State is directed to grant Freedom Fighters’ Pension in favour of the appellant’s husband and since he is no more, grant the same with all arrears to the appellant by passing appropriate orders expeditiously preferably within four weeks from the date of communication of copy of this order. We hope and trust that the State Government will not indulge in any further delay in the matter of grant of pension so as to enable the appellant to avail the benefits at least during her life time. The appeal stands allowed with the above directions to the respondent State. No costs.

July 20, 2012
Rashid Kapadia vs Medha Gadgil & Ors

4. Aggrieved by the said detention order, the appellant herein made a representation to the 1st respondent praying that the detention order be revoked, for various reasons mentioned in the representation. The said representation came to be rejected by the 1st respondent by an order dated 07-09-2011. Subsequently, the appellant filed the abovementioned writ petition on 18-10-2011 challenging the order of detention. By the Judgment under challenge the said writ petition was dismissed.

5. The facts, which lead to the passing of the detention order, are as follows:

6. A consignment of goods covered by eight shipping bills, all dated 26- 10-2010, being exported by a firm called M/s.Noble Impex, was detained by the Customs authorities. On examination of the consignment and the relevant documents, the authorities opined that there was a mis-declaration with respect to the quality, quantity and valuation of the goods sought to be exported. It appears that the said goods were being exported under a scheme known as “Drawback Scheme”. According to the Customs Department, the goods were over-valued in order to claim the benefit of higher export “drawback”. It is the case of the Customs Department that one Syed Naimuddin is the proprietor of the abovementioned M/s. Noble Impex. Syed Naimuddin and the detenu are said to be cousins. It is the further case of the Customs Department that the abovementioned cousins, with the aid and abetment of one Ashok Dhakane and Bala Jadhav, who are the partner and employee respectively of M/s. Khakane & Co., a firm carrying on business as a clearing house agent, attempted to make the abovementioned export. Therefore, the Customs authorities moved the 1st respondent for the issuance of the detention order against the abovementioned four persons.

7. The 1st respondent, on a consideration of the material placed before her, issued the detention order.

24. Therefore, we have no option, but to come to the conclusion that the detention order cannot be sustained on the abovementioned ground alone and it is required to be, accordingly, set aside.

25. In view of such conclusion, we do not think it necessary to go into other contentions raised on behalf of the appellant. The Appeal is, therefore, allowed.

July 25, 2012.
Nihali Devi vs State Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr

3. The appellant is convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. She was sentenced by the trial court to two years’ simple imprisonment; in addition she was also directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- to the complainant as compensation. In appeal, the conviction and sentence was maintained and her revision before the High Court was dismissed as barred by limitation by 565 days.

4. According to the complainant, in August, 2003, he had advanced a loan of Rs.1,00,000/- to the appellant for the repayment of which she gave him two cheques dated March 25 and April 1, 2005 for Rs.40,000/- each. Both the cheques, on presentation to the bank, were dishonoured for want of sufficient funds. When the appellant failed to make payment after due notice, he filed a complaint (CC No.8382/2005) in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi. The appellant was put on trial and by judgment and order dated November 14, 2007, she was convicted and sentenced, as aforesaid.

6. Against the appellate order, the appellant filed a revision after a delay of 565 days which, as noted above, was dismissed on grounds of limitation.

9. At the time of filing the special leave petition she had deposited a sum of Rs.50,000/- out of the compensation amount of Rs.1,20,000/-. Hence, this Court directed her to deposit the remaining amount of Rs.70,000/- as the condition to allow her prayer for exemption from surrendering. She filed proof of deposit of the remaining amount on October 18, 2011, and the full amount of compensation i.e. Rs.1,20,000/- now remains deposited in the court below which the complainant - respondent No.2 is free to withdraw.

10. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it appears to us that the sentence of two years’ imprisonment given to the appellant is unduly harsh. It is clear to us that she is a victim of tragic circumstances and she never intended not to repay the amounts for which she issued the two cheques in favour of respondent No.2. We, accordingly, set aside the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellant and substitute it by a fine of Rs.25,000/- which, she must pay within four months from today, failing which she will have to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days. Out of the amount of fine, if deposited, Rs.20,000/- will be paid to the complainant, which he would be free to withdraw.

11. In the result, the appeal is disposed of with the aforesaid modification and reduction in the appellant’s sentence.

July 25, 2012.
Krishnappa & Ors vs State Of Karnataka By Babaleshwara P.S

4) The facts of the case, in brief, as put forth by the prosecution are:-

6) After this incident, PW1 went to his elder brother Venkappa who was constructing a house and from there, they both went to Babaleshwar Police Station at about 11:15 am to file a complaint but PSI (SHO)- PW18 was on duty at some other village. On arrival of PW18, the written complaint of PW1 was lodged at 12:00 Noon. On the basis of said complaint, the First Information Report dated 15.09.2001 in Crime No. 122/2001 was registered and sent to the Court of CJM, Bijapur.

7) Thereafter, all the accused were arrested within a week from the date of incident. Further, recoveries of blood stained weapons used for the commission of offence were made under a mahazar. The blood stained clothing of the deceased along with blood stained weapons were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory. The Serology report and FSL confirmed that stains on the articles found are of human blood.

12) The High Court, after perusing the entire evidence on record, allowed the appeal filed by the State and found it fit not to accept the conclusion of acquittal arrived by the learned Sessions Judge with regard to acquittal of A1, A15, A16 and A21, convicting them of charges punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC and sentencing them to undergo imprisonment for life. The appeal filed by the appellants- A13 and A14 came to be dismissed and the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Learned Sessions Judge was confirmed by the High Court. The High Court has allowed the appeal filed by A-17 (Prakash Mallappa Shirabur) and the conviction passed against A17 was set aside and he was acquitted.

13) Feeling aggrieved by this judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the High Court, the present appellants-accused are before us in these appeals.

19) In the backdrop of aforesaid arguments advanced by the parties, we will examine the contentions advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties with regard to the role of accused and application of Section 149 of IPC.

22) We are also of the opinion that accused- A1, A15, A16 and A21 were members of the same assembly which has caused the murder of the deceased, in terms of Section 149 IPC, as they had dragged the deceased after first assault and contributed in preventing the deceased from escaping the assault of A13 and A14. Therefore, accused A1, A15, A16, A21 are guilty of murder along with A13 and A14 under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC.

25) In the result, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court. Therefore, these appeals deserves to be dismissed and, accordingly, they are dismissed.

Ordered accordingly.