L-NLProc/TathyaNyaya-and-FactLegalLlama-NyayaScrape-Datasets huggingface dataset:
Venus Housing Enterprises vs Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation & ...

The appellant claims to be the owner of final Plot No.874 of Town Planning Scheme No.IV, Mahim, Mumbai (hereinafter `the Scheme', for short). Respondents 5 to 7 (for short `tenants') are the tenants in regard to structure no.1 therein. The said plot no.874 facing Prabha Devi Road (later S.K. Bole Marg) on the one side and Cadell Road (later Veer Savarkar Marg) on the other side was earmarked for residential use in the said Scheme which came into force on 15.8.1963. The Asst. Engineer, Town Planning, Municipal Corporation for Greater Bombay (`the Corporation' for short) issued a show-cause notice dated 9.8.1990 under section 89 read with section 165 of the Maharashtra 2 Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (`the Act', for short) to the tenants calling upon them to show cause why they should not be evicted from the said structure in enforcement of the said Scheme. The said notice alleged that final plot no.874 was being put to non-conforming use in contravention of Regulation No.25 of the Regulations controlling the development of the area covered by the above final Scheme. The tenants showed cause in reply. They also filed a suit challenging the said notice. The interim prayer sought by them was rejected by the trial court, but on appeal, was granted by the High Court and confirmed by this Court.

3. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant-landlord of the premises filed WP No.1511 of 2000 for quashing the withdrawal letter dated 10.4.2000 and seeking a direction to the Corporation to forthwith implement the Scheme and the Regulations and for certain consequential reliefs. The High Court examined the matter, found that withdrawal of 3 show-cause notice was proper and not open to challenge and consequently, dismissed the writ petition by order dated 25.6.2001. The said order is challenged in this appeal by special leave.

5. The Corporation in its counter has given detailed reasons as to why it withdrew the notice after considering the representation/objections filed by respondents 5 to 7. The High Court has also referred to the said reasons in detail. It is sufficient to refer to some of them :

8. Appeal is, therefore, dismissed.

......................................................J [R. V. Raveendran] ...................................................J [Aftab Alam] New Delhi;

October 16, 2008.
N.Ramakrishnaiah (D) Tr.Lrs vs State Of A.P

3. The factual matrix leading to the conviction of the accused N. Ramakrishnaiah was as follows:

13. We notice that the figure indicated in Ext.D1 is Rs.1,34,160/- for the period from 1961 to 1976. The trial Court has in fact gone to the extent of adopting the figures of these 15 years for the next 10 years. The entries in Exts. P92 to 95 have not been established to be erroneous and therefore the 7 trial Court and the High Court have rightly refused to accept accused's stand of under-estimation.

17. The analysis made by the trial Court and the High Court and evidence on record leave no manner of doubt that the conviction as recorded does not suffer from any infirmity. We find no infirmity with the order of the High Court. The appeal is dismissed.
N.Naveen Kumar & Ors vs State Of A.P

3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows;

The appellants are the sons and daughters of the accused N. Ramakrishnaiah in C.C. No.64 of 1992 on the file of the Principal Special Judge, for SPE & ACB Cases, Hyderabad. He was charged for the offence under Section 5 (1)(e) read with Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (in short the `Old Act') possessing the pecuniary resources disproportionate to the known sources of income. The accused worked as Executive Engineer as on the date of search of his house and other properties. Evidence was adduced and the Special Judge found the accused guilty, convicted him for the above mentioned offence and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. The Special Judge also directed that item No 1 to 4 of the assets shall be sold in public auction and the sale proceeds shall be confiscated to the State. The accused, being aggrieved by the conviction and the sentence 2 imposed by the Special Judge preferred Criminal Appeal No.1524 of 1998. The High Court dismissed the appeal. As noted above, during the pendency of the appeal before the High Court, the appellant died, therefore, the sentence of imprisonment stood abated against the appellant.

8. The appeal is dismissed.
Union Of India & Anr vs S. Thakur

2. The Fifth Central Pay Commission was set up by the Government of India vide Resolution dated April 9, 1994. The Commission submitted it's Report on January 30, 1997 relating to structure of emoluments, allowances, benefits to be paid to the Central Government employees including Union Territories, Members of All-India services and personnel belonging to the Armed forces. Apart from revising the pay scale of employees at each stage, the Commission recommended that out of 52 posts of Assistant Director in Intelligence Bureau, 40 posts be upgraded and placed in the pay scale of Rs.3700-5000 whereas 12 posts be upgraded as Joint Deputy Director and placed in the pay scale of Rs.4500-5700. Vide Government order dated October 16, 1998, 40 posts of Assistant Directors were placed in the pay scale of Rs.12000-16500 3 corresponding to pre-revised scale of Rs.3700-5000 and the remaining 12 posts were placed in the scale of Rs.14300-18300 corresponding to pre-existing scale of Rs.4500-5700 and re-designated as Joint Deputy Directors. It was also mentioned in the said order that the implementation of the orders involved restructuring of the Executive cadre and redistribution of posts and therefore higher scales would be applicable only prospectively, i.e., from October 1, 1997. The incumbents, who were similarly situated, were granted benefit of higher pay scale with effect from January 1, 1996. Therefore, the respondent who retired from service as Assistant Director (Executive) on January 31, 1997 gave a representation that the benefit of upgraded scale be extended to him from January 1, 1996. The said representation was rejected on July 13, 1999. Feeling aggrieved the respondent filed original application No. 2185 of 1999 before the Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi with a prayer to direct the appellants to 4 grant benefit of upgraded scale to him with effect from January 1, 1996.

8. In view of the above, the appeal fails and is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 8

October 17, 2008.
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd vs Sri Narayana Thimmappa & Anr

2. The first respondent was hired on daily wage basis, for miscellaneous work on 1.8.1998 by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Telegraphs, Kumta (Karwar District). No order of appointment was issued and he was paid from the contingency account. The respondent's services were discontinued with effect from 1.4.2000. Feeling aggrieved the respondent approached the Central Administrative Tribunal contending that he ought to have been given temporary status. The Tribunal directed the department to consider first Respondent's request. Accordingly, the appellant, successor of telecom department considered the case of first 2 respondent and passed an order dated 16.8.2001 rejecting the request for temporary status. The order stated that he was hired under the contingency expenditure account; that only casual mazdoors were entitled to conferment of temporary status; that recruitment of casual mazdoors was stopped with effect from 30.3.1985; that as first respondent was not employed as casual mazdoor, he was not entitled to conferment of temporary status. The first respondent challenged the said order in OA No.1262/2001 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore and prayed for a direction to the appellant to grant him temporary status. The Tribunal, by order dated 6.2.2002 allowed the said application, quashed the order dated 16.8.2001 and directed the appellant to grant him temporary status from the due date in terms of the scheme dated 7.11.1989. That order was affirmed by the High Court by order dated 13.1.2005. The said order is challenged in this appeal by special leave.

6. We accordingly allow the appeal and set aside the orders of the Tribunal and the High Court and dismiss the application filed by the respondent claiming temporary status.

..........................................................J [R. V. Raveendran] .............................................................J [J M Panchal] New Delhi;

October 17, 2008.
Kapil Deo Sinha vs Kirandeo Prasad & Anr

The High Court found that seven witnesses were examined to further the prosecution version. Although PW 1 was the son of the deceased, PW 2 was the injured witness, PW 6 the present appellant was the informant, PWs. 5, 6 &7 i.e. Somar Mahton, Kapildeo Sinha and Ramji Prasad @ Rama respectively were stated to be eye witnesses to the occurrence. PW 1 the son of the deceased stated that they were singing Holi songs. PW 1 also stated that due to darkness they could not know as to who was the assailant. PWs 5, 6 & 7 stated contrary to what PW 1 had stated and stated that they were not participating in Holi because of the death of the deceased. The High Court found this to be improbable because death of the deceased by the attacks took place in the evening. The High Court was of the view that non-examination of the Investigating Officer (in short the `I.O.') and the Doctor without any explanation being offered by the prosecution and the aforesaid unreliability of the evidence of PWs 5, 6 & 7 was sufficient to discard the prosecution version.

5. Appeal is accordingly dismissed.

October 17, 2008 7
State Of A.P vs Bajjoori Kanthaiah & Anr

2. By the impugned judgments the High Court of Andhra Pradesh has quashed the FIR filed by Prohibition and Excise officers alleging commission of offences punishable under Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968 (in short the 'Act') and the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995 (in short the 'Prohibition Act'). In all the cases the allegation was that the concerned accused was either transporting or storing black jaggery/molasses for the purpose of manufacturing illicit distilled liquor or was an abettor so far as the offence of manufacturing illicit liquor is concerned. On being moved by application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the `Code') by the concerned accused for quashing the FIR, the High Court accepted the plea holding that there was no material to show that the seized articles were intended to be used for manufacturing of illicit distilled liquor. Accordingly, the FIR in each case was quashed.

11. Keeping in view the principles of law as enunciated above, the action of the High Court in quashing the FIR in each case cannot be maintained and are set aside.

13. All the appeals are allowed, as indicated above.
Dipitimayee Parida vs State Of Orissa & Ors

4. Appellant filed an application for recruitment as an Anganwadi Worker, the last date wherefor was 20.9.2000. Admittedly, at that time, she was not married. She was married in 2001. She secured 43% in HSC Examination + 3 marks in Intermediate and 9 marks in viva voce, totaling 55 marks. However, she was awarded 3 more marks on the ground that she got married although as noticed hereinbefore she on the last specified date for filing of the application was not married.

5. Contending that the Selection Committee had no jurisdiction to award 3 marks to appellant, respondent filed a writ petition before the High Court of Orissa. The said writ petition was allowed by a learned single judge of the said Court by a judgment and order dated 30.3.2005, opining:

Therefore, I have no hesitation to set aside the order passed by the Collector and direct that the petitioner be engaged as an Anganwadi Worker in the centre in question, if there is no other impediment."

14. In this view of the matter, we do not find any legal infirmity in the impugned judgment. The appeal is dismissed accordingly. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.

OCTOBER 20, 2008
M/S Three Cheers ... vs C.E.S.C.Ltd

4. One of such programmes known as ‘Khoj Khabar’ was telecast by ETV (Bangla) alleging some illegal acts and malpractices on the part of the Calcutta Electricity Supply Company Ltd., (CESC) an undertaking engaged in generation and supply of Electricity in the town of Calcutta.

8. Notices having been served upon the appellents, the matter relating to confirmation of ad interim order of injunction came up before the learned Single Judge of the High Court on 30.11.2005. While noticing that the defendants in the suit had not opposed the prayers of injunction, although they were earlier represented through counsel, it was opined that apart from the order of interim injunction as prayed for in prayers ‘a’ and ‘b’ of the interlocutory application, a receiver should also be appointed, holding :

9. The learned receivers who were supposed to have taken prompt action failed and/or neglected do so. They did not visit the office of the company for taking possession of the relevant documents and the DV (wrongly stated in the order as CDs) immediately after the said order was passed. It is stated at the Bar that the time for filing a report was extended.

10. Appellants, however, contend that on 11.1.2006 some representatives of CECS visited their office and asked them to handover all materials connected with the telecast. They were allegedly threatened that if the materials were not handed over, they would be in contempt.

It now stands admitted that a copy of the said order was not served on the appellants. No copy of the order was sent to them by the respondent. Even the learned Joint Receivers did not intimate the appellant about their appointment.

We the Joint Receivers tried our best to get the CD and Cassettes, documents and films from Khoj Khabar Office in presence of the plaintiff and their representative but found nothing.

ul-Juha. CESC office was closed on that date.

XXX XXX XXX

20. Can you say on authority that on 11th January, 2006 none from the CESC office went to the office of the defendant?

I can say upto where my knowledge goes nothing beyond that.”

35. The Division Bench of the High Court, with great respect, did not advert to any of the aforementioned contentions of the appellant.

37. For the reasons aforementioned, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained. It is set aside. Consequently, the orders dated 30.11.2005 and 22.8.2008 are also set aside.

38. As orders of injunctions in terms of Prayer ‘a’ and ‘b’ are in operation and CDs are already in possession of the court, we in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India direct that the contempt proceedings itself be dropped. The amount of fine deposited by the appellants should be refunded by the High Court forthwith.

39. The appeal is allowed with the aforementioned directions with costs payable by Respondent No.1 to the West Bengal State Legal Services Authority, Calcutta. Counsel’s fee assessed at Rs.1,00,000/-.

October 20, 2008
S.Ramakrishna vs State Rep.By Pub.Prosr., H.C. A.P

3. Background facts as projected by the prosecution are as follows:

4. To establish the accusations, the prosecution examined 12 witnesses and got marked 13 exhibits besides marking of MOS. After closing of prosecution evidence accused was examined in terms of Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short `Code'). The accused again pleaded innocence but marked Ex.D1. The Trial Court placed reliance on the evidence of the prosecution PW1 and the evidence of the doctor PW9 and held that the accusations were established. Accordingly, the appellant was convicted and sentenced.

13. That being so, the Trial Court and the High Court rightly found the accused-appellant guilty. The appeal is without merit and is dismissed.
Union Of India & Ors vs Chitra Lekha Chakraborty

These appeals, by special leave, are being filed in connection with the selection of Non-Technical Popular Clerical Category of the Railways. The selection was held in the year 1984 and a written test was held on 26.5.1985 followed by an interview on 25.9.1985. Several candidates were selected. There was allegation that some of the candidates, who participated in the selection, indulged in malpractices in the examination and it appears that the selection Board has published a list which contains about 1000 candidates. Some of these candidates who were aggrieved by their non- selection filed various representations before the Railway Recruitment Board. 2 While these representations were pending, they filed 3 Original Applications before the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short `C.A.T.')at Calcutta. The C.A.T. has directed that their cases be considered and fresh interviews be held and selection be done and the candidates be included. Thereafter several candidates were appointed, pursuant to the direction of the C.A.T.. Prior to this, on 17.2.1986 the Addl. Executive Director Estt.(T&MPP) wrote a letter to the Chairman, Railway Recruitment Board indicating the number of candidates to whom the fresh notices have been issued and it was found that some candidates have secured more marks than the 1000 candidates, who were suspected to have indulged in malpractices, and he was of the view that these candidates should be given careful consideration and on consideration of the same, their rights should be restored and the names of those candidates which were in the list should be included in the appropriate places in the panel. Appropriate direction to appoint the respondents in Civil Appeal @ SLP)Nos.21902-21903/04 and in the appeal @ SLP(C)No.18603/05 were issued, on the basis of the letter dated 17.2.1986 and the said respondents were appointed in the year 1994. These respondents had claimed seniority over the candidates who had already been appointed in the year 1985 based on the statement made in the letter dated 17.2.1986 that their appointments should be made after including them at the appropriate places in the panel. The C.A.T. has directed the railway authorities to fix the specific position of the respondents in the panel for the purpose of determination in the inter se seniority against those appointed from the said panel 4 and the relative position of the applicants in such panel shall be ascribed keeping in view the aggregate marks obtained by the applicants and the relative aggregate marks of the applicants who have already been appointed from the said panel.

We will now deal with Civil Appeal @ SLP) 7686/04. The brief facts are :

The appeal @ SLP(C)No.7686 of 2004 is disposed of accordingly. No costs.

Accordingly, Civil appeals @ SLP)Nos.21902-03/04 and SLP)No.18603/05 are allowed to the extent indicated above and the order passed by the High Court is set aside. No costs.

...............CJI.

21ST OCTOBER, 2008.
Mukhtiar Singh vs State Of U.P. & Anr. Etc

The short facts are that, upon a written report submitted at the concerned police station by petitioner Mukhtiar Singh, a First Information Report was drawn up on 16th November, 2002, for offences under Sections under Sections 363, 366 and 376 I.P.C. Sahib Singh, Parkash and Rameshwar were named as accused in the First Information Report. As per the prosecution, the victim Mamta was recovered on 25th December, 2002, from the possession of Bauna and Vijender. Her statement was recorded under Section 161 of the Code in which she named Ramlal, Bhura and Bobby, sons of Ramlal, Bauna and Vijender, apart from the persons named in the First Information Report. During the pendency of investigation, a petition was filed by the informant on 10th January, 2003, for recording the statement of Mamta under Section 164 of the Code. When the learned Magistrate called for the report from the police on the said petition, the latter appears to have submitted charge-sheet on 13th January, 2003 and, on the same day, a report was submitted to the court that it is not necessary to record the statement of the victim under Section 164 of the code because charge-sheet has already been submitted. Thereupon, the court rejected the petition filed by the informant. The learned Magistrate took cognizance on 3rd February, 2003, and ordered issue of summons to the accused.

report submitted by the police with the assertion that charge-sheet has already been filed. The High Court allowed the petition filed by the informant and directed the learned Magistrate to record the statement of Mamta under Section 164 of the Code. This order was complied with on 17th February, 2003.

...4/-

The criminal appeals are, accordingly, allowed and the impugned orders are set aside. Now, the learned Magistrate shall consider the statement of victim Mamta recorded under Section 164 of the Code on 17th February, 2003, pursuant to the direction of the High Court together with charge-sheet submitted by CB-CID and proceed in accordance with law after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties.
M.Dhandapani vs R.Muthu Naliappan & Ors

Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court dismissing the appeal under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the 'Code'). The appeal was filed questioning the order dated 20.12.2001 made in CC No. 85/2000 on the file of Learned Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Kodumudi, Erode DIstrict. The allegations were to the effect that on 18.2.1997 at about 9.45 P.M. accused persons took exception to the fact that the complainant had kept his shop open after the time fixed for closing the shop. The complainant was questioned by respondent No. 1 as to why he had kept the shop open. The complainant replied that the shop was kept open for the cleaning the utensils. This does not appear to have satisfied respondent No. 1 who directed the other two accused persons who were constables to put the accused in the jeep and assaulted him.

That being the position, we find no merit in these appeals. The appeals are accordingly dismissed.
Ashok Kumar Mondal vs Samir Kumar Mondal & Anr

The prosecution version as unfolded during trial is that on 24.01.1988 in the early morning when Gouri Balal Mondal wife of the deceased was engaged in washing utensils, her husband's elder brother accused Benoy Kumar Mondal (who was acquitted) was cleaning the road with broom stick. At that time, some dust particles fell on the person of Gouri -2- Bala, as a reason whereof, there was exchange of hot words amongst her husband, two sons with the accused and his father. At that time, the accused Samir Kumar Mondal stated to have brought a crowbar and stuck on the head on Ajit Kumar Mondal, husband of PW2; as a consequence whereof, father of PW1 became unconscious and sustained bleeding injuries. He was taken to the Primary Health Centre but later shifted to Suri Sadar Hospital. He succumbed to the injuries. On the next date i.e on 25.01.2008 first information report was lodged at the police station. The prosecution relied on the evidence of four persons who are stated to be eye-witnesses. The trial court on the basis of evidence brought on record found the respondent Samir Kumar Mondal to be guilty as noted above and convicted him. In appeal, the High Court found that the evidence of the witness do not inspire confidence and not reliable, genesis of the prosecution story was suppressed and therefore it was unsafe to rely on the witnesses.

The appeals are dismissed accordingly.