L-NLProc/TathyaNyaya-and-FactLegalLlama-NyayaScrape-Datasets huggingface dataset:
Mukesh Kumar Badoni vs State Of Punjab And Others

1. Appellant was employed as a Chowkidar by the respondent No.3. He applied for his appointment to the said post of Chowkidar upon having come to learn that the same was lying vacant. Respondent No.3 had issued an offer of appointment in his favour on or about 3rd August, 2002. His appointment was to be on probation for one year and subject to approval of Director of Public Instructions Pnnjab, Chandigarh. He was, however, relieved from his duties with effect from 28th July, 2003 on the premise that his services were no longer required by the College.

3. He served a legal notice upon the authorities of the College as also the Director of Public Instructions. Respondent No.3 in reply to the said notice on the Advocate of the appellant dated 20th October, 2003, inter alia stated :-

5. Appellant thereafter filed a writ petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The said writ petition has been dismissed by reason of the impugned judgment dated 2nd September, 2003.

12. In his writ petition, however, the appellant did not state that he possessed the said qualification. Even in the special leave petition he did not make any statement that he holds the requisite qualification. If he does not possess the requisite qualification, this Court and also for that matter the High Court, could not issue a writ, which would be futile in nature.

13. It may be that the respondents had taken different stands at different stages but the fact remains that his services have not been approved by the Director of Public Instructions. He does not possess the requisite qualification. Unless an express approval of the competent authority is granted, he cannot be permitted to continue in services with the College.

14. For the reasons aforementioned, we are of the opinion that it is not a fit case where this Court could exercise its jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. The appeals fails and is accordingly dismissed. In he facts and circumstances of the case, however, there shall be no order as to costs.
Commnr. Of Central Excise, T.N vs M/S. Vinayaga Body Building Indus. Ltd

3. For carrying out its manufacturing activities, the respondent purchased duty paid chassis from Tata Motors Ltd. The seating capacity of the cabs for which the body building activity was being carried out by the respondent is 12 PLUS 1 (i.e. 12 passengers and one driver).

4. Indisputably, National Calamity Contingency Fund was created by Finance Act, 2003 wherefor inter alia it was proposed to impose one per cent duty on motor cars and multi utility vehicles.

6. A show cause notice was issued calling upon the respondent to show cause as to why an amount of Rs. 4,42,823/- should not be recovered from them in terms of Section 11A of the Central Excise Act read with Rule 4(1) of the Central Excise Rules towards NCCD at one per cent on the motor vehicles with seating capacity of more than 6 but less than 12, excluding driver's seat as also a penalty and interest thereupon. Cause was shown to the said notice by the respondent.

7. By an order dated 29.11.2004, the assessing authority confirmed the demand of Rs. 4,42,823/-. A penalty for an amount of Rs. 5000/- was also imposed at the prescribed rate. It was furthermore directed that on the said amount of duty interest shall be payable.

18. Sub-Heading 8702.10 would, therefore, be applicable.

For good and sufficient reasons, in our opinion, the contention raised on behalf of the respondent with reference to the job-work prepared by them had been rejected.

20. For the reasons aforementioned, the impugned judgment cannot be upheld, which is set aside accordingly.

21. The appeal is allowed. However, in the facts and circumstances of this case, there shall be no order as to costs.
Shankar Ragho Bhagane vs State Of Maharashtra

3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

Parvati (PW2), took breakfast and came to her parents in the morning at about 8.00 to 8.30 a.m. on 21.1.1999. She called out to her mother, but there was no response. So she moved her hand on the face of her mother. She also carefully saw face of her mother. Her hand was smeared with blood. She realized that her mother was dead. She started weeping. She informed of the incident to neighbours. The neighbours came and saw the dead body of Girja. PW1 on getting the information of the incident went to Dapoli Police Station and lodged the First Information Report. The offence came to be registered. It was investigated by Police Sub-Inspector Sanjay Shamsunder Kurundkar (PW6). The inquest panchnama of the dead body was drawn. The dead body was forwarded to the Primary Health Centre at Phansu. Post mortem on the dead body was made by Dr. D.L. Khabade (PW 5). In all, five injuries were noticed by him on the dead body. Injury to the brain was also noticed. Dr. D.L. Khabade opined that the death was caused due to cardio respiratory failure due to injury to brain. Head injuries were found to be enough to cause the death in ordinary course of nature. The Police Sub- Inspector Sanjay Kurundkar drew the scene of occurrence panchanama. One stick smeared with blood and on which hair were attached was recovered from the place of offence. The accused was apprehended. The panchanama of his arrest was made. The clothes on his person were seized. Later on the clothes of accused, stick, the clothes recovered from the dead body of the deceased and sample of the blood of accused were sent to Chemical Analyser, Pune for examination. The Chemical Analyst examined them and issued the reports. When the investigation was over the accused was challenged for committing murder of his mother. The case was registered. It came to be committed to Sessions Court for trial.

It was held that the prosecution had established its case beyond doubt and accordingly conviction was recorded and sentence was imposed. The High Court did not find any substance in the appeal and dismissed it.

11. The appeal has no merit and deserves dismissal which we direct.
Prithvi Ram vs Malook Singh

JUDGMENT O R D E R CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1726 OF 2008 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 6984 of 2006) Leave granted.

Respondents-claimants were employed as agricultural labourers at the rate of Rs.80 per day or one-fifth share with the appellant from 01.05.2002 to 30.04.2003. They filed a claim petition before the Competent Authority under the Minimum Wages Payment Act, 1948 (for short 'the Act') alleging that they were paid wages less than Rs.80 per day or one-fifth share in agricultural employment, as agreed upon; that as per the calculation on the basis of the Act they were entitled to recover Rs.85,168.32P from the appellant. Appellant filed his written statement wherein it was stated that the provisions of the Act were not applicable as the respondents were not working as labourers but had taken up the agricultural work on the basis of one-fifth share in crop. On 07.04.2005, the Competent Authority ordered to proceed ex-parte against the appellant since he did not appear before the

Competent Authority. On 14.06.2005, the Competent Authority allowed the respondents application and directed the appellant to deposit Rs.85,168/- within 30 days from the date of the order failing which appellant shall pay one time of this amount as compensation. Appellant filed an application before the Competent Authority for setting aside the order dated 07.04.2005 by which he was proceeded ex-parte and order dated 14.06.2005 by which the award of Rs.85,168/- was passed. The said application was dismissed by the Competent Authority on 28.06.2005. Thereafter, appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh seeking setting aside of the aforesaid orders which has been dismissed by the impugned order.

Hence, this appeal by grant of special leave.

The appeal is dismissed accordingly.
Dhananjay Malik & Ors vs State Of Uttaranchal & Ors

J U D G M E N T CIVIL APPEAL NO 1771 OF 2008 (Arising out of S.L.P.( c ) N0 1466 of 2006) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1772 OF 2008 (Arising out of S.L.P ( C ) No. 2743 of 2006 AND CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1773 OF 2008 (Arising out of S.L.P ( C ) No.7989 of 2006) H.K. SEMA,J

3. Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.1466 and 2743 of 2006 have been filed by the selected candidates. The High Court by the impugned order set aside the entire selection and appointments of Assistant Teachers (Physical Education) in Garhwal Mandal. According to the High Court, the selection and appointments were made in violation of the Rules. By an interim order dated 27.1.2006 this Court stayed the operation of the order of the High Court and, therefore, they are still holding the posts, for which they have been selected.

4. An advertisement was issued on 24.6.2002 for Garhwal Region for the selection and appointment of the Physical Education Teachers (L.T.Grade). The requisite qualification indicated in the advertisement is B.P.E. or Graduate with Diploma in Physical Education. The unsuccessful candidates in the interview challenged the selected candidates on various grounds. One of the grounds was that the advertisement and selection were not based in accordance with the Rules called U.P. Subordinate Educational (Trained Graduates Grade) Service Rules, 1983 (in short the Rules). We will examine the Rules a little later. The unsuccessful writ petitions were dismissed by the Single Judge. On appeal by the unsuccessful candidates, the order of the Single Judge was reversed and the appeals were allowed. Hence, these appeals by special leave.

15. For the reasons aforestated, Civil Appeals arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 1466 and 2743 of 2006 filed by the successful candidates are allowed. The impugned judgment and order of the Division Bench of the High Court is set aside. No costs.

CIVIL APPEAL ARISING OUT OF S.L.P ( C ) No.7989 of 2006

16. This appeal filed by the non-selected candidates is dismissed.
Sita Ram & Ors vs Moti Lal Nehru Farmers Training ...

3. Appellants herein and in particular, some of them, claimed to have been working with the respondent institute for a long time. Their services were not being taken from 28.12.1996. They raised an industrial dispute. The State of U.P. in exercise of its power under the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the dispute for adjudication before the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, U.P. Allahabad.

The Labour Court, having regard to the fact that the respondent despite having been called upon to produce relevant records failed/neglected to do so, drew an adverse inference against it. It, furthermore, took into consideration the oral as also the documentary evidence adduced on behalf of the appellants to hold that they have worked for a period of more than 240 days. As the condition precedent for terminating the services of the appellants, as envisaged under Section 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 had not been complied with, the said orders of termination of services were held to be bad in law. Appellants, therefore, directed to be reinstated with 25 per cent of the back wages by an Award dated 12.4.2002.

15. It furthermore appears from the records that, the wages were being paid in a wage-sheet and no pay slip used to be issued therefor. Appellants, thus, were not expected to produce any pay slip. No exception therefore, can be taken to the findings of the Labour Court.

18. Keeping in view the period during which the services were rendered by the respondent; the fact that the respondent had stopped its operation of bee-farming, and the services of the appellants were terminated in December, 1996, we are of the opinion that it is not a fit case where the appellants could have been directed to be re-instated in service.

21. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the opinion that payment of a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- to each of the appellant, would meet the ends of justice. This appeal is allowed to the aforementioned extent. In the facts and circumstances of this case, there shall be no order as to costs.
Tanusree Basu & Ors vs Ishani Prasad Basu & Ors

4. The said appeal was dismissed by an order dated 10.08.2006 for default as process fee was not deposited. It was, however, restored to its original file. Immediately thereafter, however, the appellants allegedly put a padlock in flat No. 201 which was in occupation of the first respondent. On or about 14.08.2006, an application was filed by him before the 8th Civil Judge (Senior Division) Alipore inter alia praying for:

We are concerned in this case with a question whether if a co-owner was in specific possession of the joint property, he could be dispossessed therefrom without the intervention of the court. In this case, the first respondent is not claiming title of adverse possession. The said decision has, therefore, no application to the fact of the present case.

16. It is not the law that a party to a suit during pendency thereof shall take law into his hands and dispossess the other co-sharer.

18. The fact situation obtaining herein, however, is absolutely different. In this case, such a foundational fact has not only been raised by the respondents, the appellants admitted the factual scenario in that behalf. No party, it is trite, ordinarily should be allowed to take benefit of his own wrong.

19. For the reasons aforementioned and particularly having regard to the fact situation obtaining herein, we are of the opinion that the impugned judgments warrant no interference. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with costs. Counsel's fee assessed at Rs. 10,000/-.
M/S Bharjatiya Steel Industries vs Commissioner, Sales Tax, U.P

3. Appellants stated that about 9.47% of the total amount of scrap purchased, i.e., 239.966 M.T., could not be utilized by it. It sold the said goods to other dealers at a concessional rate of tax. Inter alia, on the plea that the appellant for the purpose of obtaining the tax concession in terms of Section 4-B(2) of the Act had furnished an undertaking whereby and whereunder it undertook to utilize the entire material for manufacturing purposes, which was breached by reason of the said transfer, a proceeding for levy of penalty was initiated against it whereupon a show-cause notice was issued. Cause was shown by the appellant on 5.03.1990 contending that the said quantity of scrap being not usable, it had no other option but to dispose of the same.

4. By reason of an order dated 26.03.1990, the assessing officer rejected the said contention. It levied penalty of Rs.85,619/- on the appellant.

5. An appeal preferred thereagainst before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) was dismissed by an order dated 8.02.1991. An appeal to the Tribunal preferred by the appellant was, however, allowed by an order dated 29.04.1993, stating:

(Emphasis supplied) The Tribunal, however, as noticed hereinbefore, allowed the appeal on the ground that the appellant did not have any mens rea.

We are not concerned with such a question here.

20. The assessing authority, therefore, understood the said provision to mean that the appellant was liable to be imposed with a punishment. The authority did not say that the duty which was otherwise due from the appellant would be realized.

21. We, however, are of the opinion that in the facts and circumstances of this case, existence of mens rea on the part of the appellant is evident.

24. In the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the opinion that no case has been made out for interfering with the impugned judgment. The appeal is dismissed accordingly. No costs.
Steel Authority Of India Ltd vs Deby Lal Mahato & Ors

3. The brief facts which are necessary for disposal of this appeal are that Bokaro Steel Plant, a national project of the Government of India, was commissioned on land acquired from the various land holders. For acquisition of their lands, the land holders were not only paid compensation but in addition to that, an understanding was reached between the Union Government, the State Government and the Company that apart from compensation, one person from each displaced family would be given employment in the steel plant. This evoked a spate of petitions and various orders were passed from time to time in view of the assurance which was given in the minutes of the Understanding dated 25th January, 1964. In view of the Understanding, a list was prepared of all persons whose lands were acquired along with buildings and structures and those whose lands had been acquired which did not have any building and structure thereon. The original list prepared in the year 1972 consisted of 6019 displaced families and against that more than 16,000 (approx.) persons have already been given employment.

The list so prepared shall be sent to the Director, Project Land and Rehabilitation, for verification, who shall get the bonafide of the status and claim of such persons verified and submit the report in connection therewith to the Steel Authority within three months from the date of receipt of the request for verification. The Steel Authority will thereafter hold interview for selection of suitable candidates and prepare a panel containing the names of selected displaced persons within two months.

14. In the result, we set aside the judgment and order dated 3/10.01.2007 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court and dismiss the contempt proceedings pending before it. We allow this appeal with the direction that the 970 persons whose names appear in category (ii) as per the direction of the High Court 7.4.1998 shall be considered and given preference for employment, other things being equal. Appeal allowed. No order as to costs.
Regional Engineering College ... vs Karan Singh Saini & Ors

Respondent No.1, Shri Karan Singh Saini, was appointed as Junior Engineer (Civil) on adhoc basis for a period of three months. It appears that respondent No.3, transposed as appellant No.2, was thereafter appointed on regular basis to the same post. Aggrieved thereby, respondent No.1 filed a writ petition which has been allowed by the impugned order of the High Court. The High Court was of the view that the appointment of appellant No.2 was not made in accordance with the rules and the High Court directed fresh advertisement for the post by announcing it through radio/television, publishing it in newspapers of wide circulation and by sending .....2.

requisition to the Employment Exchange. On this ground, the appointment of appellant No.2 was set aside.

In the view that we have taken, the High Court fell in error in setting aside the appointment of appellant No.2.

The order of the High Court is set aside. This appeal is allowed. No costs.
Gautam Sarup vs Leela Jetly And Ors

3. The Will was executed on or about 23.9.1999 bequeathing his properties in equal shares to the appellant and the said Ritu Sarup. 2

Respondent No.6 Leela Jetlley, on being served with the summons appeared through one Shri M.P. Vasudeva, Advocate. She filed a written statement admitting the averments made in the plaint.

7. A revision petition was filed by the appellant thereagainst. By a judgment and order dated 15.3.2002, the High Court, while setting aside the 3 said order of the learned Trial Judge dated 12.9.2001 directed it to hold an enquiry at the first instance as to whether the respondent No.6 ever engaged Mr. Vasudeva, Advocate or ever signed the written statement which had been placed on record. It was directed that in the event the findings of the said enquiry go in her favour, it will be open to her to file the second written statement or the one which has been filed by her may be accepted. It was, however, observed :

8. Pursuant to or in furtherance of the said direction, an enquiry was held and it was opined that respondent No.6 had, in fact, appointed the said Shri Vasudeva as her lawyer and filed her written statement on 30.3.2000. A revision application was filed thereagainst by the respondent No.6 which by reason of an order dated 7.4.2004, was dismissed by the High Court.

9. An application for amendment was thereafter filed by her on 5.11.2004 which was allowed by the learned Trial Court by an order dated 23.2.2005. Appellant moved the High Court invoking its revisional 4 jurisdiction and by reason of the impugned judgment the same was dismissed opining :

The said decision, therefore, is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.

28. We, therefore, are of the opinion that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained. It is set aside accordingly. The Appeal is allowed with no order as to costs.
Pramod Kumar vs U.P.Sec.Education Services Com. & Ors

7. It became known to the University that he had not been possessing a degree granted by a university recognized by the Commission.

9. Inter alia on the premise that he had not been paid his salary, he filed a Writ Petition before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad which was marked as Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 1338 of 1989. Upon noticing that he had been getting his salary from 1.1.1991, by a Judgment and Order dated 5.7.1996, the High Court directed the respondents to pay the arrears of salary from 1.12.1988 to 31.12.1990. 7

11. A departmental proceeding was thereafter initiated against the appellant. On completion thereof, his services were terminated by an order dated 12.2.1997. He filed a Writ Petition questioning the correctness of the said order. By reason of a judgment and order dated 9.3.1997, a learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the said Writ Petition stating :

Admittedly, the appellant did not possess this qualification. That being so, the appointment is bad. The Commission recommended to the Government for relaxation of the qualification under Regulation 7 of the Regulations. The Government rejected that recommendation.

Where, therefore, the appointment was clearly against Regulation 7, it was liable to be set aside. That being so, no question of estoppel would ever arise. We respectfully agree with the view taken by the High Court."

32. For the reasons aforementioned, there is no merit in this appeal. The appeal is dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

March 7, 2008